Last Updated on February 25, 2021 by LawEuro
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF LADAN AND GULTYAYEV v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 66139/16 and 17491/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 February 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ladan and Gultyayev v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ivana Jelić, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2021,
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
I. 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.
II. 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, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
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, and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, both 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, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, both 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, and Konovalchuk v. Ukraine, no. 31928/15, § 52, 13 October 2016, both 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.
III. 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 Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004; Melnik v. Ukraine, cited above; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011; Ignatov v. Ukraine, no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016; and Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, 4 July 2019.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13. 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 sumsindicated in the appended table.
14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. 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 25 February 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Ivana Jelić
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 and Year of birth |
Represen-tative’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] |
| 1. | 66139/16 18/11/2016 |
Mykola Ivanovych LADAN 1972 |
Andriy Valeriyovych Skrynnyk Kyiv |
Chronic osteochondrosis complicated by sequestrating hernia accompanied by a consistent pain syndrome | lack of/delay in medical examination, lacking/delayed drug therapy 01/08/2016 to 30/11/2016 4 months |
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention – the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, 01/08/2016‑30/11/2016, – inadequate room temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack of privacy for toilet | 9,750 | 250 |
| 2. | 17491/19 21/03/2019 |
Viktor Oleksandrovych GULTYAYEV 1974 |
Oleksandr Mykolayovych Kushnirov Kropyvnytskyy |
HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, Related dermatological illnesses | lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lacking/delayed drug therapy 20/06/2015 to 26/07/2019 More than 4 years and 1 month |
Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings – from 19/06/2015 and pending, 1 level of jurisdiction (more than 5 years and 7 months); Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre‑trial detention – from 20/06/2015 to 26/07/2019 the applicant was in detention on remand; from 26/07/2019 and pending he is in 24/7 house arrest. The courts advanced the same grounds for maintaining his detention and subsequently his 24/7 house arrest as those at the time of his initial detention. |
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.
Leave a Reply