CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s56698C1A { width:138.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RADCHENKO AND ABRAMOV v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 5312/20 and 22627/20 )           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 January 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision .   In the case of Radchenko and Abramov v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Mārtiņš Mits , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Ukraine 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.     Notice of the applications was given to the Ukrainian 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. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. They relied on Article   3 of the Convention. 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,   for example,   Gorbulya v.   Russia , no.   31535/09, § 62, 6   March 2014, with further references, and Pokhlebin v.   Ukraine , no.   35581/06, § 62, 20   May 2010, 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, inter alia , Ukhan v.   Ukraine , no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and 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,   for   instance, Sadretdinov v.   Russia , no.   17564/06, §   67, 24   May 2016, with further references, and Konovalchuk v. Ukraine , no.   31928/15, § 52, 13   October 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 Nevmerzhitsky v.   Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-05, ECHR 2005 II, Melnik v. Ukraine, no.   72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006, and Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no.   13448/07, §§ 68-78, 14 October 2010). 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Logvinenko , cited above, §§ 89-95), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Mārtiņš Mits   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Principal medical condition Shortcomings in medical treatment Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     5312/20 16/12/2019 Nataliya Illivna RADCHENKO 1963 Fokiy Bogdan Vasylyovych Chernivtsi cardiomyopathy, chronic hepatitis, chronic pancreatitis, peptic ulcer, concession, progressive encephalopathy, osteochondrosis of the spine, arterial hypotension, dysmetabolism lack of/delay in medical examination, lacking/delayed drug therapy, lacking/delayed diet   02/04/2019 pending More than 4 years and 7 months and 23 days Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention ( see Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine , no. 40512/13, §§ 94-97, 22 October 2015) 7,500 250     22627/20 05/05/2020 Volodymyr Mykolayovych ABRAMOV 1960 Dementyev Oleksandr Sergiyovych Kyiv heart condition, hypertensive crisis, diabetes, internal resorptive hydrocephalus lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of/delay in medical testing, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist   10/09/2019 to 29/03/2021 1 year and 6 months and 20 days Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 10/09/2019 - pending; the detention based on standard grounds without sufficient assessment of risks (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov   v. Ukraine , 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 December 2016);     Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation ofArticle 5 § 3 of the Convention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 5 § 3 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine , no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy   v.   Ukraine , no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015);     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention (see Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine , no. 40512/13, §§ 94-97, 22 October 2015). 9,750 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.