CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 2019

.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 } .sC0E715B8 { font-family:Arial; font-size:1pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s8D893B61 { width:152.77pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 54984/17 Mikhail Igorevich BELYAYEV against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16   May   2019 as a Committee composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 July 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr T.O. Kalmykov, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate medical treatment in detention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). The applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court observes that the events of which the applicant complained took place in 2004 and 2005 (see the appended table). The applicant introduced his application on 19 July 2017. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint was lodged out of time for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. B.     Remaining complaints The applicant also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning alleged consequences of his inadequate dental treatment. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 June 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Yonko Grozev   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Principal medical condition Shortcomings in medical treatment 54984/17 19/07/2017 Mikhail Igorevich Belyayev 09/01/1981 Tooth decay and extraction of three teeth Severe toothache resulting from the tooth decay. The applicant stated that as a result of lack of dental treatment (due to the lack of adequate equipment and staff in the prison) the Prison doctor had extracted three teeth which had been infected with decay and which, the applicant believed, could have been successfully treated   in 2004 - 2005