The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard.In application no.\u00a041495\/18, the applicant 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 Danilov and Others 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 applications 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\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 and that there was no effective remedy in that regard.In application no.\u00a041495\/18, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/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<\/strong><\/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\u00a0[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 Blokhin v.\u00a0Russia\u00a0[GC], no. 47152\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 120-50, ECHR 2016; Reshetnyak v.\u00a0Russia, 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 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. The applicants also complained that no effective domestic remedies regarding the quality of the medical care in detention were available to them. Their 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 applicants with adequate and sufficient redress for their complaints under Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 13. The Court sees no reason which would justify departure from its well\u2011established case-law on the issue. It finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 14. In application no. 41495\/18, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well\u2011established case-law of the Court (see the 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 well-established case-law (see Idalov v.\u00a0Russia\u00a0[GC], \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0103\u201108, no. 5826\/03, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a018255\/10 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a092-156, 9 April 2019, concerning conditions of transport during detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect).<\/p>\n 15. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about conditions of detention after conviction and lack of an effective remedy in this connection. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7 156, ECHR 2014).<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 16. 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 17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Tselovalnik v. Russia, no. 28333\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 70-77, 8\u00a0October\u00a02015, andKolesnikovich, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a082-92), and to previous award paid to Mr Shelest for a violation of his right to adequate medical aid (see Kovalev and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 38777\/04and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a018, 30 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sumsindicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 18. 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 about poor medical assistance in detention and about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the table appended below, admissible, and considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the remainder of application no.\u00a041495\/18;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these applications disclose 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 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 6. 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 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 Darian Pavli __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF DANILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 28714\/18 and 4 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
\n(inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)<\/p>\n