CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 15 November 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 45022/16 Fotaq ZAHARIA against Albania lodged on 30 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the inadequacy of the medical treatment of the applicant, who is suffering from pseudarthrosis (bone fracture), and conditions of his detention in view of his state of health. It also concerns the non-enforcement of a court decision according to which the applicant should have access to a surgery as suggested by medical experts. The applicant also complains under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy and about being discriminated against on the ground of his detention. On 25 August 2016 the Court decided to indicate to the Albanian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should immediately be given the required medical treatment (surgery) as ruled by the Kruja District court’s judgment of 10 March 2015. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Articles 3 and   13 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Did the applicant receive an adequate medical treatment as suggested by medical experts and ordered by the domestic court? (b)     Were the applicant’s conditions of detention in conformity with the applicant’s state of health? 2.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 13 on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce the Kruja District Court’s judgment of 10 March 2015? 3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention? 4.     What steps have been taken by the authorities to execute the Court’s decision of 25 August 2016 on the interim measure indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court?