The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Boroday and Others v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov, President, Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2021<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. Notice of the applications was given to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d).<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained principally that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. They relied on Article\u00a03 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a03<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 8. The Court reiterates that the \u201cadequacy\u201d of medical assistance remains the most difficult element to determine (see Blokhin v.\u00a0Russia [GC], no.\u00a047152\/06, \u00a7\u00a0137, ECHR 2016). It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example,\u00a0Gorbulya v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a031535\/09, \u00a7 62, 6\u00a0March 2014, with further references, and Pokhlebin v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a035581\/06, \u00a7 62, 20\u00a0May 2010, with further references) and that \u2012 where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition \u2012 supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee\u2019s health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v.\u00a0Ukraine, no. 30628\/02, \u00a7 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and Kolesnikovich v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a044694\/13, \u00a7\u00a070, 22\u00a0March 2016, 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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a017564\/06, \u00a7\u00a067, 24\u00a0May 2016, with further references, and Konovalchuk v. Ukraine, no.\u00a031928\/15, \u00a7\u00a052, 13\u00a0October 2016, with further references)<\/p>\n 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has identified the shortcomings in the applicants\u2019 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.\u00a0Ukraine, no. 54825\/00, \u00a7\u00a7 103-05, ECHR 2005 II, Melnik v. Ukraine, no.\u00a072286\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 104-06, 28 March 2006, and Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no.\u00a013448\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n 11. In application no.\u00a036191\/15, the applicant 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\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 Kharchenko v.\u00a0Ukraine, no. 40107\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a070-72, 10\u00a0February 2011.<\/p>\n IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 12. In application no.\u00a044274\/13, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 13. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the\u00a0light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they either do not meet the\u00a0admissibility criteria set out in Articles\u00a034 and\u00a035 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 14. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Logvinenko, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 89-95), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It also rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant in application no. 44274\/13.<\/p>\n 16. The Court further 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the complaints concerning the failure of the authorities to provide the applicants with adequate medical care in detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no.\u00a044274\/13 inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the\u00a0Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the\u00a0other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n 6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction in application no. 44274\/13.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 January 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF BORODAY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 44274\/13 and 2 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 January 2022<\/p>\n
\nLado Chanturia,
\nArnfinn B\u00e5rdsen, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(inadequate medical treatment in detention)<\/p>\n