European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF GILEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 19504/19 and 2 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

13 October 2022

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

 

In the case of Gilev and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Darian Pavli, President,

          Andreas Zünd,

          Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard.

THE LAW

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION

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:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”

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.

8.  The Court reiterates that the “adequacy” of medical assistance remains the most difficult element to determine (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 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, § 62, 20 May 2010, and Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014) and that ‒ where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition ‒ supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee’s health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has identified the shortcomings in the applicants’ 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, §§ 120-50; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 49-101, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 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.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

III.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If 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.”

12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Tselovalnik v. Russia, no. 28333/13, §§ 70-77, 8 October 2015, and Kolesnikovich, cited above, §§ 82-92), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

13.  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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the applications admissible;

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 remedy in this respect;

4.      Holds

(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;

(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                                Darian Pavli

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention

(inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)