European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF YANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 35773/18 and 8 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

6 June 2024

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

In the case of Yanov and Others v. Russia,

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

 Lətif Hüseynov, President,
 Ivana Jelić,
 Erik Wennerström, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 16 May 2024,

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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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.

2. JURISDICTION

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained principally that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

8.  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.

9.  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, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references, and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) 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, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 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. Russia, no. 17564/06, § 67, 24 May 2016, with further references, and Konovalchuk v. Ukraine, no. 31928/15, § 52, 13 October 2016, with further references).

10.  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 in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Blokhin, cited above, §§ 120-50, ECHR 2016, 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.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

4. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  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 13 of the Convention.

13.  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, §§ 49-101, and Koryak, also cited above, §§ 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 3 of the Convention.

14.  The Court sees no reason which would justify departure from its well-established 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.

5. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

15.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (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. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, regarding unjustified pre-trial detention; and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning conditions of detention during transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.

6. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

16.  Some applicants, in addition, complained under Articles 3, 13 and 14 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 Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

7. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Kolesnikovich, cited above, §§ 82-92, Tselovalnik v. Russia, no. 28333/13, §§ 70-77, 8 October 2015 and Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, §§ 77-83, 9 January 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants' complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. 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 remaining complaints raised by the applicants;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention;
5. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective domestic remedy regarding complaints about the quality of the medical care in detention;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
7. 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 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
 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)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.