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 14 February 2018.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Andriyanov v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 15 September 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 14 February 2018.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was represented by Mr R. Kachanov, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg.<\/p>\n 3. Notice of the application was given to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\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.<\/p>\n 6. On 9 March 2018 it was decided to apply an interim measure under Rule 39. However, it was lifted on 15 April 2018 because the applicant was released.<\/p>\n 7. On 13 December 2018 the applicant died.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. AS TO LOCUS STANDI OF MrsAndriyanova<\/strong><\/p>\n 8. Following the death of the applicant, his wife, Mrs Anna ValentinovnaAndriyanova, expressed the wish to pursue the application.<\/p>\n 9. The Government objected noting that the rights claimed by Mr\u00a0Andriyanov under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention belonged to the category of non-transferrable rights.<\/p>\n 10. The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant\u2019s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court\u2019s assessment of the person\u2019s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359\/10, \u00a7 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant\u2019s death (see Malhous v.\u00a0the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071\/96, ECHR 2000 XII).<\/p>\n 11. In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Mrs Andriyanova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant\u2019s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For convenience, it will, however, continue to refer to Mr Andriyanov as the applicant in the present judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. The applicant complained 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 13. 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 14. 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 15. 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 120-50, Reshetnyak v. Russia, no.\u00a056027\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 49-101, 8 January 2013, and Koryak v. Russia, no.\u00a024677\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a070-110, 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 16. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 17. The applicant also complained that no effective domestic remedies regarding the quality of the medical care in detention had been available to him. His complaint falls 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 18. 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, also 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 19. The Court sees no reason which would justify departure from its well\u2011established 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 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 20. 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 21. 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 October 2015; and Budanov v. Russia, no.\u00a066583\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 77-83, 9 January 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 22. 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. Holds that Ms Andriyanova has standing to pursue the proceedings initiated by the applicant, her late husband;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care of the applicant in detention;<\/p>\n 4. 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 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay Ms Andriyanova, the applicant\u2019s heir, 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 Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli ______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF ANDRIYANOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 9361\/18)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
\n(inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in this regard)<\/p>\n