{"id":22120,"date":"2024-01-18T12:43:26","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T12:43:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22120"},"modified":"2024-01-18T12:43:41","modified_gmt":"2024-01-18T12:43:41","slug":"case-of-radchenko-and-abramov-v-ukraine-the-applicants-alleged-that-they-did-not-receive-adequate-medical-care-in-detention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22120","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF RADCHENKO AND ABRAMOV v. UKRAINE – The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 5312\/20 and 22627\/20)<\/p>\n

The applicants complained principally that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

The Court reiterates that the \u201cadequacy\u201d of medical assistance remains the most difficult element to determine. It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate 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. 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.<\/p>\n

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. 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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

CASE OF RADCHENKO AND ABRAMOV v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) 5312\/20 and 22627\/20. Full text of the document<\/a>.<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(inadequate medical treatment in detention)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong>
\nDate of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n		Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong>
\nYear of birth<\/strong>
\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n		Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nPrincipal medical condition<\/strong><\/td>\nShortcomings in medical treatment<\/strong><\/td>\nOther complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant<\/strong>
\n(in euros)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n		Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application<\/strong>
\n(in euros)[ii]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n5312\/20
\n16\/12\/2019<\/td>\n		Nataliya Illivna RADCHENKO<\/strong>
\n1963<\/td>\n		Fokiy Bogdan Vasylyovych
\nChernivtsi<\/td>\n		cardiomyopathy, chronic hepatitis, chronic pancreatitis, peptic ulcer, concession, progressive encephalopathy, osteochondrosis of the spine, arterial hypotension, dysmetabolism<\/td>\nlack of\/delay in medical examination, lacking\/delayed drug therapy, lacking\/delayed diet
\n02\/04\/2019
\npending
\nMore than
\n4 years and
\n7 months and
\n23 days<\/td>\n		Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention (see Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine<\/em>, no. 40512\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 94-97, 22 October 2015)<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n22627\/20
\n05\/05\/2020<\/td>\n		Volodymyr Mykolayovych ABRAMOV<\/strong>
\n1960<\/td>\n		Dementyev Oleksandr Sergiyovych
\nKyiv<\/td>\n		heart condition, hypertensive crisis, diabetes, internal resorptive hydrocephalus<\/td>\nlack of\/delay in medical examination, lack of\/delay in medical testing, lack of\/delay in consultation by a specialist
\n10\/09\/2019 to
\n29\/03\/2021
\n1 year and
\n6 months and
\n20 days<\/td>\n		Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – 10\/09\/2019 – pending; the detention based on standard grounds without sufficient assessment of risks (see Kharchenko<\/em>
\nv. Ukraine<\/em>, no. 40107\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov\u00a0v. Ukraine<\/em>, 40583\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38-42,
\n15 December 2016);
\nArt. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation ofArticle 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention – no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 5 \u00a7 3 (see Tymoshenko<\/em> v. Ukraine<\/em>, no. 49872\/11,
\n\u00a7\u00a7 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy\u00a0v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no. 28718\/09, \u00a7 55, 5 March 2015);
\nArt. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention (see Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine<\/em>, no. 40512\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 94-97, 22 October 2015).<\/td>\n		9,750<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
\n[ii]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n