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.\u00a045095\/19, 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 Mikhalevand Savinovv. 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.\u00a045095\/19, 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 ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained principally that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read 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 Article 13<\/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 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. Russia [GC], no.\u00a047152\/06, \u00a7 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, Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581\/06, \u00a7 62, 20 May 2010, and Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535\/09, \u00a7 62, 6 March 2014) 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 Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694\/13, \u00a7 70, 22 March 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 with regard to issues similar to those in the present case (see Blokhin, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 120-50; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 49-101, 8 January 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 applicants did not receive comprehensive and adequate medical care whilst in detention. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in this regard.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. In application no.\u00a045095\/19, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well\u2011established 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.\u00a032541\/08 and 43441\/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement of an applicant in a metal cage during court hearings, and Maylenskiy v. Russia, no. 12646\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 28-40, 4 October 2016, andKlimov\u00a0v.\u00a0Russia, no. 54436\/14, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a041-50, 4 October 2016, as regards the State\u2019s failure to comply with the\u00a0interim measure\u00a0indicated 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. 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 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Tselovalnik v. Russia, no. 28333\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 70-77, 8\u00a0October 2015, and Kolesnikovich, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 82\u201192), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sumsindicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 14. 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 applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention and lack of an effective domestic remedy in this respect;<\/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 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 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 \u00a0Darian Pavli ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF MIKHALEV AND SAVINOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 45095\/19 and 28947\/20)<\/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 \u00a0President<\/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