CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mars 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 194 March 2016 Kolesnikovich v. Russia - 44694/13 Judgment 22.3.2016 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Failure to perform Helicobacter pylori test and other shortcomings in treatment of detainee’s ulcer: violation Facts – During his pre-trial detention and while serving a prison sentence, the applicant suffered from frequent ulcer recurrence and other serious health conditions. He unsuccessfully sued the prison administration for inadequate medical treatment. Law – Article 3: Even though the authorities had become promptly aware of the applicant’s health problems, he had been left without any medical supervision during the first two years of his detention, until his health had worsened to the extent that he could no longer take part in court hearings. His delayed admission to the prison hospital, combined with the failure to provide him with some of the required medication in order to, at least, relieve his severe stomach pain, was a serious shortcoming. The Court was not convinced that the authorities had properly assessed the complications of the applicant’s condition. His treatment had lacked a strategy aimed at reducing the frequency of ulcer recurrence and was therefore patently ineffective. A major flaw in that respect was the failure to perform the Helicobacter pylori test.* Moreover, the authorities did not seem to have assessed the compatibility of the applicant’s treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for his spinal problems with his ulcer disease, even though such medication could induce gastrointestinal bleeding and deterioration of the patient’s condition. All those shortcomings, taken cumulatively, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found unanimously a violation of Article   13 of the Convention . Article 41: EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. *   The Court relied, inter alia , on the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus report of 22   February 2012 on Management of H.pylori infection, according to which H.pylori was the key factor in peptic ulcer development and H.pylori eradication effectively achieved ulcer healing rates exceeding 90%.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes