The applicant alleged that he did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Yeruslanov v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, Having deliberated in private on 16 June 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 25 September 2017.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was represented by Ms N. Yeruslanova, a lawyer practising in Moscow.<\/p>\n 3. Notice of the application was given to the Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d).<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant alleged that he did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained principally that he was not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. He 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 applicant suffered from serious medical conditions, as indicated in the appended table, which affected his everyday functioning. Therefore, he could have experienced considerable anxiety as to whether the medical care provided to him 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, Gorbulya 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 applicant\u2019s 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 Blokhin, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0120\u201150, Reshetnyak v. Russia, no.\u00a056027\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 49-101, 8\u00a0January 2013 and Koryak v. Russia, no.\u00a024677\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 70-110, 13 November 2012). Bearing in mind its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant 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\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. The applicant also complained that no effective domestic remedies regarding the quality of the medical care in detention were available to him. His complaints fall to be examined under Article\u00a013 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a013<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority …\u201d<\/p>\n 12. The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Reshetnyak, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 49-101, and Koryak, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 70-110). In the aforementioned cases the Court established that none of the legal avenues suggested by the Government constituted an effective remedy to prevent the alleged violations or stop them from continuing, or to provide the applicant with adequate and sufficient redress for his complaints under Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 13. The Court sees no reason which would justify departure from its well-established case-law on the issue. It finds that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints, in breach of Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 14. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill\u2011founded 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 well-established case-law (see Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a071\u201174, 9\u00a0December 2008, as regards delayed release from custody, and Klimov v.\u00a0Russia, no. 54436\/14, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a041-50, 4 October 2016, as regards the State\u2019s failure to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule\u00a039 of the Rules of Court, in breach of its obligation under Article\u00a034 of the Convention).<\/p>\n IV. Remaining complaints<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. The applicant also complained under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention that his detention from 13 July to 4 October 2017 had been unlawful.<\/p>\n 16. The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 17. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 18. 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 19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Kolesnikovich, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 82-92, Tselovalnik v.\u00a0Russia, no. 28333\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 70-77, 8\u00a0October 2015 and Budanov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a066583\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 77-83, 9 January 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 20. 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. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate medical care and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as listed in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a013 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective domestic remedy regarding complaints about the quality of the medical care in detention;<\/p>\n 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 the appended table);<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 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 \u00a0Darian Pavli _________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n Application raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention<\/p>\n (inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)<\/p>\n
\nCASE OF YERUSLANOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 69591\/17)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 July 2022<\/p>\n
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n