ECHR June 6, 2023, Pitsiladi and Vasilellis v. Greece , nos . 5049/14 and 5122/14
"50. The Court notes that in the present case the applicants do not claim that their son was denied medical treatment, which was otherwise available in Greece, nor do they complain about the quality of the treatment received. This is not a case of medical negligence. It is apparent from the case file that their son had access to medical facilities and treatment, that he received appropriate and available treatment free of charge in both national and private hospitals, and that he underwent surgery and a transplant (see paragraphs 5 and 9 above). Nor do they suggest that the State should have financed their son's treatment on the grounds that they themselves had not been able to meet the costs. They do not criticise the State for not having access to public funds, given that, as established by the domestic courts, the sums collected from the bank account opened for their benefit had not been seized by the national authorities and did not therefore belong to the State. They are not criticising a lack of rules in the field of public health, but rather the content of the existing rules on the collection of donations, which they consider too restrictive. In view of the Court's case-law summarised above, it should be recalled that there are positive obligations under Article 2 in the field of public health in the context of allegations of medical negligence or in the context of refusal of treatment. However, the applicants do not claim that their son was refused medical treatment. The Court considers that the present case cannot fall within any of the contexts of refusal of medical treatment described above (paragraphs 48 and 49 above).
51. It will examine the applicants' complaint concerning the rapid access to the bank account into which the collected sums had been deposited from the perspective of the State's positive obligations to establish a regulatory framework for the protection of the health of its citizens. The Court notes that in the present case there were regulations governing fundraising – lotteries or philanthropic markets – and the conditions for access to sums from fundraising aimed at ensuring legal certainty and the protection of contributors, combating fraud and avoiding the exploitation of public philanthropic sentiment. It thus notes the legitimacy of the aims pursued, namely the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others. It considers that this regulatory framework did not, in principle, concern the field of public health and that Article 2 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as requiring that access to sums collected through an appeal for donations be regulated in a specific sense.
52. The Court is mindful that specific regulations were available to the applicants, who could have requested, by following the procedure before the Special Health Committees (see paragraph 21 above), that their son's hospitalisation abroad, and even in the United States, be financed. Indeed, Ministerial Order No. 15 of 7 January 1997 lays down in detail the conditions and procedure by which such an application must be submitted to the social security bodies in order to receive a favourable decision following a reasoned opinion drawn up by the Special Health Committees. The applicants have maintained that they contacted treating physicians and the competent health committees, who ruled out the possibility of financing their son's treatment abroad. Although the Court cannot speculate on the outcome of such an application in the present case, the applicants have not provided any concrete information showing that they followed the procedure laid down in the Ministerial Order. The Court cannot therefore accept that the above-mentioned sit
