CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 November 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25036/16 Svetlana Vyacheslavovna MASTERSKIKH against Russia lodged on 22 April 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Svetlana Vyacheslavovna Masterskikh, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Cherepovets, the Vologda Region. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant suffers from Becker muscular dystrophy, an inherited disorder that involves slowly worsening muscle weakness in the legs and pelvis. Over the years her capacity to walk diminished significantly and the applicant sought a reassessment of the degree of her disability. As part of the reassessment, on 4 June 2014 the Bureau for Medical and Social Expert Assessments of the Vologda Region drew up an individual rehabilitation programme for the applicant, which specified that she should be provided with one indoor and one outdoor wheelchair. No special functions for the wheelchairs were mentioned. On 17 June 2014 the Bureau for Medical and Social Expert Assessments of the Vologda Region recognised that the deterioration of the applicant’s health required that she be classified as having a life-time first-degree disability. On 25 July 2014 the head of the neurology department of Vologda Regional Hospital No. 2 issued a report after examining the applicant and stated that she needed someone to help take care of her and technical rehabilitation tools to be able to move around independently and take an active part in society. The report specified that the applicant needed one powered wheelchair with a standing function and one with a stair-climbing function. On 24 December 2014 the Cherepovets Town Prosecutor (“the prosecutor”) brought civil claims on the applicant’s behalf. One was against the Bureau for Medical and Social Expert Assessments, asking it to amend the applicant’s individual rehabilitation programme, and the other was against the Vologda regional branch of the Russian Social Security Fund, demanding that the applicant be provided with technical rehabilitation tools, namely the two powered wheelchairs, one for indoor use with a standing function and one for outdoor use with a stair ‑ climbing function. The applicant later provided details of the particular types of wheelchair that she needed. On 28 January 2015 the Vologda Town Court dismissed the claims. Its reasoning stated that under Russian law people with disabilities had the right to receive technical rehabilitation tools from the State authorities that were specified in individual rehabilitation programmes and that those programmes could also list “the functional characteristics of technical rehabilitation tools”. The Town Court decided that the functions of standing and stair-climbing in a wheelchair could not be considered as “the technical characteristics of a rehabilitation tool” as they were in essence “additional functions of the recommended technical tool” for a person with a disability. It concluded that the applicant had the right to receive a standard wheelchair funded from the State budget, and that it was open to her to contribute financially to the purchase of a special ‑ function wheelchair. The issue of whether the applicant could afford such an expense was not touched on in the judgment. The applicant and the prosecutor’s office lodged appeals. The applicant argued, in particular, that she could not leave her flat in a standard wheelchair because there was no elevator or wheelchair ramp in her block of flats. Moreover, the lack of a special-function wheelchair could put her life at risk because she would not be in a position to get herself out of her flat in case of an emergency. The applicant also submitted a report by an engineer confirming that the design of the block of flats did not allow for the movement of a standard wheelchair so that it would be impossible to leave it urgently, even with assistance. It also said that the pavements in Cherepovets were covered with large potholes and that the majority of the basic shops and amenities in the area adjacent to her block of flats were not equipped with ramps and were thus inaccessible in a standard wheelchair. On 15 April 2015 the Vologda Regional Court dismissed the appeals. It repeated the Town Court’s argument concerning “the technical characteristics of a rehabilitation tool” and “the additional functions of a technical tool” and decided that a wheelchair with special functions could be purchased without using funds from the State budget. On 10 September 2015 a judge of the Vologda Regional Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant at the regional level. On 10 November 2015 a judge of the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed a second cassation appeal by the applicant. COMPLAINT The applicant complains in substance under Article 8 of the Convention that her right to respect for her private life was infringed by the State authorities’ refusal to provide her with special-function wheelchairs, despite the recommendations of a physician.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to a private life on account of the State authorities’ refusal to provide her with special ‑ function wheelchairs? If so, did the interference in question fulfil the criteria set out in Article 8 §   2 of the Convention? 2.     Alternatively, considering the nature of the disorder from which the applicant suffers and the lack of unassisted wheelchair access to her flat, has the respondent State complied with the positive obligations inherent in effective “respect” for private life by assisting the applicant in exercising her right to personal development and her right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (see, mutatis mutandis , Pretty v. the United Kingdom , no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002 ‑ III)?