CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sE2BDF40E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:left } .s12FD4E6 { width:170.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s284A8526 { width:124.92pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s946186CF { height:1.1pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 8720/12 and 41785/13 Tamara Aleksandrovna PARYGINA against Russia and Valeriy Vitalyevich BULIN against Russia (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   January 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant in application no. 41785/13, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants, relevant details of their applications, and details of their representatives are set out in the appended table. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor on that post, Mr   M. Galperin. The applicants complained, in particular, of the lack of adequate medical care in detention and alleged that they had had no effective remedies in that regard. In application no. 8720/12, the applicant also complained of the poor conditions of her detention and the lack of effective avenues through which to complain about them. The aforementioned complaints were communicated to the Government, and the remainder of application no. 8720/12 was declared inadmissible. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the poor quality of medical care Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicants claimed that during their detention they had not received adequate medical care. The invoked provision of the Convention reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies and that in any event, the detention authorities had given them adequate treatment. 1.     Application no. 8720/12 The Court observes that the applicant’s detention came to its end on 28   October 2011. After her release from detention and before applying to the Court on 13 January 2012 she did not seek compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage caused by the alleged lack of medical care. In previous cases against Russia, the Court has clearly distinguished between two situations. It has found that no effective remedies existed in Russia for applicants who have complained of an on-going deterioration in their health in view of the absence of proper medical care in detention (see, among other authorities, Reshetnyak v. Russia , no. 56027/10, §   80, 8   January 2013; Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, § 91, 27 November 2012; and Koryak v. Russia , no. 24677/10, § 95, 13 November 2012). However, when an applicant was no longer in the situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities’ failure to provide him with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v.   Russia , no.   38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v.   Russia , no.   21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v.   Russia , no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia , no.   68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008). Given that the applicant’s complaint was lodged with the Court after her release from detention, her situation falls into the latter category. For no apparent reasons she did not file a civil claim for damages against the detention authorities. Consequently, she has failed to use a remedy that should have been exhausted. Accordingly, the complaint must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Mumryayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52025/13, § 17, 21   April 2015). 2.     Application no. 41785/13 The Court observes that the thrust of the applicant’s complaint relates to the choice of medication used to treat his condition, in particular, the doctor’s decision not to give him the drugs he wanted, but to treat him with a different, allegedly inefficient medication. In connection with that the Court reiterates that it is not its task to rule on the matters lying exclusively within the field of expertise of medical specialists and to establish whether an applicant, in fact, required a particular treatment or whether the choice of treatment methods appropriately reflected the applicant’s needs (see Dumikyan v. Russia , no.   2961/09, § 58, 13 December 2016, and Ukhan v. Ukraine , no. 30628/02, §   76, 18 December 2008). Having regard to the complexity of the applicant’s medical condition and absence of evidence which could have supported his allegation, such as an expert report setting out differences between the invoked medications and treatment strategies, as well as possible risks to the applicant’s heath, the Court has to conclude that this part of the complaint is unsubstantiated (see, mutatis mutandis, Amirov v. Russia, no. 56220/15, § 48, 17 October 2017; Yepishin v. Russia , no. 591/07, § 52, 27 June 2013; and Rusakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 39630/03, § 41, 17 January 2017). Taking into account all materials in its possession the Court concludes that the other issues raised by the applicant do not disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It therefore finds that the present complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. C.     Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the absence of remedies to complain about the quality of medical care The applicants claimed that they had not had at their disposal an effective remedy to complain about the lack of the adequate medical assistance, as required under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...” As regards application no. 8720/12, the Court has already addressed a similar issue in a number of cases (see Mumryayev, cited above, §§ 13 and 16; Shchebetov , ibid; and Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov , cited above, §§   34 and 36). Having seen no reason to depart from its case-law, the Court concludes that the civil remedy available to the applicant satisfied the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention. As regards application no. 41785/13, the Court notes that since it has found that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 pertaining to the quality of the medical aid is manifestly ill-founded, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in the present case (see Yeremenko v. Russia (dec.), no.   42372/08, §§ 35-38 ECHR 2016). It follows that the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 are manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and that they must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. D.     Remaining complaints In application no. 8720/12, the applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention of the poor conditions of her detention and the lack of effective avenues to complain about them. The Court has examined her application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they are manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and that they must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 8 February 2018. Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Section Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Principal medical condition Alleged shortcomings in medical treatment Dates Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law     8720/12   13/01/2012 Tamara Aleksandrovna Parygina   02/02/1954 Aleksey Anatolyevich Kurskiy   Tolyatti ischemic stroke with the right-sided hemiparesis, hypertension disease lacking/delayed drug therapy   from 27/04/2011 until release from detention on 28/10/2011   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention   from 27/04/2011 until release from detention on 28/10/2011       41785/13   19/05/2013 Valeriy Vitalyevich Bulin   09/09/1977 Tatyana Sergeyevna Glushkova   Moscow multiple sclerosis inadequate drug therapy, and lack of appropriate treatment during several relapses of the disease   from 30/11/2011 pending