CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 mai 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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF114237 { width:19.02pt; display:inline-block } .s957D7893 { width:181.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFF80D40E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 63149/13 Igor Vladimirovich GOFMAN against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Articles   3 and   13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate medical treatment in detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). By a letter of 22 February 2017 the Ukrainian Government have informed the Court that they wish to intervene in the Court’s proceedings concerning application no. 55477/16 (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court). On 20 November 2017 they submitted their comments as third party to the proceedings, having mainly concentrated on the treatment that the applicant had received in Ukraine between 2011 and 2013. They also noted that the Government of Russian had failed to provide satisfactory evidence that adequate medical treatment had been afforded to the applicant given the “illegibility” of the attachments to their observations. 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.     Complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention) The applicants complained that they had not received adequate medical treatment in respect of their medical conditions listed in the appended table. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Court observes that the general principles regarding the quality of medical care in detention have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no.   47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, and Ivko v. Russia , no. 30575/08, §§ 91-95, 15 December 2015). The Court further reiterates that it adopts conclusions after evaluating all the evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10   January 2012). In cases regarding conditions of detention and medical assistance in detention the burden of proof may, under certain circumstances, be shifted to the authorities (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; see also Mathew v. the Netherlands , no.   24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005 IX). Nevertheless, an applicant must provide an elaborate and consistent account of the State’s alleged failure to provide him with the required medical assistance, mentioning the specific elements which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on any other grounds. In the present case, the Government contended that the three applicants had been afforded adequate medical assistance. They relied on the medical records, certificates and excerpts of expert reports, including those issued by civil doctors. The Court is satisfied that the records, certificates and excerpts are original documents which were prepared during the periods under examination and which showed the actual medical procedures and treatment afforded to the applicants. Having regard to the evidence provided by the parties, the Court concludes that the applicants received essential medical treatment in respect of their conditions. The defects in the quality of medical care alleged by the applicants are either insignificant or not supported by sufficiently strong evidence. Therefore they cannot be accepted by the Court. In view of the above, the Court finds that the present complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Complaints under Article   3 of the Convention for application no. 63149/13 (conditions of detention) The applicant in application no. 63149/13 also complained about the inadequate conditions of his detention in view of his having suffered from a walking impairment. The Government disputed that complaint, having submitted a recent video recording which showed the applicant walking, without any apparent difficulties and without a cane or any other assistance, across a long recreation yard in a correctional colony. The applicant did not dispute the authenticity of the video recording. He also did not give any description of the difficulties to which he had allegedly been subjected in view of his health condition. The Court once again reiterates that its conclusions are based on the evaluation of all relevant items of evidence submitted by the parties. In view of the above, the Court finds that the present complaints are also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. D.     Complaints under Article 13 of the Convention The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found above that the applicants’ complaints about the quality of medical treatment in detention are manifestly ill-founded, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in their cases. It follows that the complaints under Article 13 are also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4   of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)   No. Application no. Date of introduction   Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Principal medical condition Shortcomings in medical treatment Dates Other complaints under well-established case-law     63149/13 11/09/2013 Igor Vladimirovich Gofman   21/01/1977 Babushkin Andrey Vladimirovich   Moscow Malalignment after hip fracture           Delayed receipt of orthopaedic shoes (at the time the applicant used a walking cane)   20/02/2014 to 12/08/2015 1 year(s) and 5 month(s)   and 24 day(s)   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention of disabled inmates - Walking impairment linked to malalignment hip fracture; IZ-1, Belgorod Region; IZ-3, Belgorod Region; IK-5, Belgorod Region; difficulties in walking on stairs and daily activity; from 06/11/2012 –pending       53122/15 11/11/2015 Valeriy Petrovich Pochkayenko   10/07/1957 Boicheniuk Cartier Ganna   Paris Bechterew’s disease, polyarthritis, atherosclerosis, Ischemic heart disease, and hypertension Occasional interruption(s) in supply of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug   28/09/2014 to 04/04/2017 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 8 day(s)         55477/16 08/11/2016 Yuriy Valeryevich Sayenko   08/10/1982 Martynovskiy Roman Yuryevich   Kyiv HIV               lack of diet 08/05/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 7 day(s)   delayed prescription and launch of antiretroviral treatment 08/05/2015 to 15/06/2015 1 month(s) and 8 day(s)   occasional short delays in blood testing and consultations by an infectious disease specialist   interruption in antiretroviral treatment   20/10/2015 to 29/10/2015 10 day(s)