CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA25AD67F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sEA75BD01 { width:106.24%; border-collapse:collapse } .s58E6AFE8 { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sBB2E5329 { width:32.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s1D76B8BF { width:22.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s86F10E73 { width:17.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBB2CC181 { width:21.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBFB61151 { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s5D0114AA { width:32.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s41469428 { width:22.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s72778E92 { width:17.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sFF1B833 { width:21.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } Published on 19 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 41395/19 Anna Volodymyrivna NESHCHERET and Ruslan Dmytrovych NESHCHERET against Ukraine lodged on 25 July 2019 communicated on 30 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 11 January 2018 the first applicant, who served her 2017 sentence in the Kyiv SIZO, gave birth to the second applicant. They both suffer from tuberculosis and the second applicant was also diagnosed with some other diseases, including clubfoot. Referring to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the material conditions in the above SIZO were inadequate (broken furniture, sanitary unit covered with mould, insufficient day light, fresh air and heating in their cell; insufficient outdoor exercises, inadequate and insufficient special nutrition for children and for those sick with tuberculosis). They also complain that the SIZO authorities failed to provide medical treatment to the second applicant as recommended by the local hospital (did not ensure consultations with, or examinations by, a neurosurgeon, a tuberculosis specialist, a paediatrician and a geneticist; did not provide medication prescribed for him and did not carry out some tests; and did not take him to the hospital to remove plaster boots he was wearing for his clubfoot, which was eventually done by the local volunteers) and there was no effective investigation into the first applicant’s complaint to the prosecutors about inadequate nutrition and medical treatment in the SIZO. Following the local court’s decision of 22 February 2019, on 1   March 2019 the first applicant was released from serving her sentence on the grounds that the second applicant required medical treatment, nutrition and special conditions which could not be ensured in the SIZO. The applicants also complain under Article 13 about the lack of effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Article 3. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicants’ detention in the Kyiv SIZO amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to   Article 3   of the Convention (see Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine , no.   56660/12, §§   133-148, 24 March 2016)?   2.     Was the medical care provided to the second applicant in the Kyiv SIZO in compliance with the requirements of the above provision (see ibid ., §§   149-158)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their above complaints under Article 3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? Appendix   No. Applicant’s name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Anna Volodymyrivna NESHCHERET (“the first applicant”) 1994 Ukrainian Vyshneve 2. Ruslan Dmytrovych NESHCHERET (“the second applicant”) 2018 Ukrainian Vyshneve