CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sFE1B186 { height:138.8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF IZYUROV AND KUKHARCHUK v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 1484/16 and 16504/16 )                             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   28 June 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Izyurov and Kukharchuk v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 June 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. They relied on Article   3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 7.     The Court notes that the applicants suffered from serious medical conditions, as indicated in the appended table, which affected their everyday functioning. Therefore they could have experienced considerable anxiety as to whether the medical care provided to them was adequate. 8.     The Court reiterates that the “adequacy” of medical assistance remains the most difficult element to determine (see Blokhin v.   Russia [GC], no.   47152/06, §   137, ECHR 2016). It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Gorbulya v.   Russia , no.   31535/09, § 62, 6   March 2014, with further references) and that ‒ where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition ‒ supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee’s health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Kolesnikovich v.   Russia , no.   44694/13, §   70, 22   March 2016, with further references). The Court stresses that medical treatment within prison facilities must be appropriate and comparable to the quality of treatment which the State authorities have committed themselves to providing for the entirety of the population. Nevertheless, this does not mean that each detainee must be guaranteed the same level of medical treatment that is available in the best health establishments outside prison facilities (see Sadretdinov v.   Russia , no.   17564/06, §   67, 24   May 2016, with further references). 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has identified the shortcomings in the applicants’ medical treatment, which are listed in the appended table. The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Khayletdinov v.   Russia , no.   2763/13, §§ 71 ‑ 78, 12   January 2016; Ivko v.   Russia , no.   30575/08, §§   104 ‑ 12, 15   December 2015; Litvinov v.   Russia , no.   32863/13, §§   90 ‑ 96, 22   March 2016; Khloyev v. Russia , no.   46404/13, §§   80 ‑ 88, 5   February 2015; and Budanov v.   Russia , no.   66583/11, §§   68 ‑ 76, 9   January 2014). Bearing in mind its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants did not receive comprehensive and adequate medical care whilst in detention. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     Article   41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, §§   82 ‑ 92, 22 March 2016; Tselovalnik v. Russia, no. 28333/13, §§ 70-77, 8   October 2015; and Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, §§ 77-83, 9   January 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and to dismiss the remainder of the applicants’ claims. 13.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the applications admissible;   3.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   5.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 June 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Principal medical condition Shortcomings in medical treatment Dates Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     1484/16 29/12/2015 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Izyurov 07/06/1956 Gayazova Regina Fargatovna Kazan Kidney cancer with metastases in lungs.                     Illness diagnosed belatedly (expert report of 02/11/2015); In medical unit no. 66 (МСЧ-66), Sverdlovsk Region, the applicant did not receive certain medical examinations prescribed by domestic standards (radioscintigraphy of bones, microbiological urine tests, and others), and was not given the medication required (anxiolytics, narcotic analgesics, and nutrients) 22/08/2013 to 02/11/2015 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 12 day(s);   Delayed cancer surgery in the Sverdlovsk Regional Cancer Hospital after admission from IK-24, Sverdlovsk Region 22/08/2013 to 15/09/2014 1 year(s) and 25 day(s). 15,000 1,700, to be paid to the bank account of the applicant’s representative, Ms Gayazova     16504/16 20/02/2016 Aleksey Viktorovich Kukharchuk 13/12/1981 Egle Denis Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk Cystic echinococcosis of the liver.             Belated confirmation by doctors from medial unit no. 24 and Krasnoyarsk Tuberculosis hospital no. 1 of the applicant’s diagnosis 19/10/2012 to 28/04/2014 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 10 day(s);   Lack of treatment by anthelmintic agents prescribed in Krasnoyarsk Tuberculosis hospital no. 1 with the applicant now requiring a liver transplant 08/05/2014 to 03/11/2016 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s). 15,000 66, to be paid to the bank account of the applicant’s representative, Mr Egle   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.