CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 novembre 2021

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF06D3D4E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 50166/13 Andrey Ivanovich SUCHKOV against Russia and 13 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   November 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 in respect of these application, 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 assistance in detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW 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. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention) The applicants complained that they had not received adequate medical assistance 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 several of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no.   47152/06, §§ 135-40, 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. Having examined the materials submitted, including extensive medical evidence submitted by the Government, the Court considers 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. Complaints under Article 13 of the Convention Some applicants also complained that no effective domestic remedies regarding the quality of the medical care in detention had been available to them in violation of 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 the medical treatment in detention are manifestly ill-founded, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in their cases. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints Mr Buntov (application no. 77634/16) also raised other complaints under various provisions of the Convention. 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 matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do 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 § 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 16 December 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Principal medical condition Alleged shortcomings in medical treatment Dates     50166/13 22/07/2013 Andrey Ivanovich SUCHKOV 1972 Kurakov Dmitriy Valeryevich Ufa HIV/AIDS lacking/delayed drug therapy 21/02/2013 - pending More than 8 year(s)     62446/16 18/01/2017 Andrey Aleksandrovich SINELNIKOV 1980     Inguinal hernia Lack of surgery 16/12/2014 - pending More than 5 year(s)     77634/16 15/12/2016 Vitaliy Maratovich BUNTOV 1976 Stolbunov Andrey Borisovich Miami Beach Spinal condition lack of an in-depth medical examination, consultation by a neurologist, or treatment 10/10/2016 - pending More than 5 year(s)     19969/17 01/03/2017 Maksim Dmitriyevich METELKIN 1978 Gayazova Regina Fargatovna Kazan Cicatricial stricture (narrowing) of oesophagus lack of surgery, appropriate nutrition and a blender 08/12/2014 - pending More than 6 year(s)     59016/17 05/08/2017 Pavel Viktorovich PETROV 1964 Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna Moscow Hypertension disease and epilepsy       Post-surgery condition (removed stomach and part of gullet affected by cancer)               lack of treatment 27/01/2017 More than 4 year(s)   lack of drug therapy prescribed before the arrest, since 09/02/2016 More than 4 year(s)   lack of diet prescribed on 20/05/2016 since 09/02/2016 More than 4 year(s)   lack of consultation by an oncologist since 09/02/2016 More than 4 year(s) lack of/delay in medical testing/examinations related to cancer since 09/02/2016 More than 4 year(s)     81380/17 29/11/2017 Ruslan Viktorovich SEMIN 1975 Petryakov Sergey Ivanovich Kazan Spondyloarthritis (Bechterev’s disease) lack of necessary drugs in the detention facility, lack of consultation by a rheumatologist, lack of regular medical examinations, massage/ physiotherapy 10/02/2016 - pending More than 4 year(s)     39747/18 10/08/2018 Magomed Mazhitovich MUKHIYEV 1963 Karpinskaya Kseniya Sergeyevna Moscow Gastroduodenal ulcer lack of/ delay in medical treatment until 22/03/2018, lack of effective medication prescribed since 22/03/2018, lack of necessary medical examinations 05/02/2016 - pending More than 5 years     40345/18 26/07/2018 Artem Melikovich CHAKRYAN 1979     Heart condition, ophthalmic disease lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lack of/delay in medical examination,   lacking/delayed drug therapy 01/02/2018 - pending More than 3 year(s)     40895/18 11/08/2018 Oleg Vladimirovich POTKIN 1970     Hepatitis C, macular degeneration (medical condition resulting in blurred or no vision in the centre of the visual field of an eye), post-traumatic arthrosis of the ankle joint and arthrosis of the right knee lack of/ delay in necessary treatment, lack of proper medical examinations, lacking/delayed drug therapy 13/10/2012 to 08/05/2019 6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 26 day(s)   46254/18 21/09/2018 Rustam Ramazanovich MUSAYEV 1990 Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna Moscow Tuberculosis lacking/delayed drug therapy,   lack of/delay in surgical treatment,   lack of/delay in medical testing,   lack of proper assistance while taking a shower or taking food, lack of proper nursing care 17/11/2017 to 29/01/2019 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 13 day(s)   54575/18 09/11/2018 Vladimir Viktorovich STOLBOVSKIKH 1987     Insulin dependent diabetes lacking/delayed drug therapy (insulin), lack of/ delay in medical consultations and testing 15/05/2017 - pending More than 4 years     58847/18 20/11/2018 Vitaliy Sergeyevich MALTSEV 1980     Insulin-dependent diabetes lacking/delayed drug therapy (insulin), lacking/delayed diet, lack of/delay in medical examination 20/06/2018 to 08/02/2019 7 month(s) and 20 day(s)   18797/19 21/03/2019 (3 applicants) Ivan Aleksandrovich FEDIRKO 1983   Roman Aleksandrovich ZHURABOVICH 1976   Valeriy Vladimirovich MAKAROV 1968 Stichting Russian   Justice Initiative Moscow First applicant (Mr Fedirko), allegedly suffering from hepatitis     Peyronie’s disease (a noncancerous condition resulting from fibrous scar tissue that develops on the penis)   Second applicant (Mr Makarov), allegedly suffering from hepatitis     HIV/AIDS       Third applicant (Mr Zhurabovich), HIV/AIDS, lacking/delayed drug therapy 29/10/2018 to 14/06/2019 7 month(s) and 17 day(s)     lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist   16/08/2017 to 14/06/2019 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 30 day(s)   lacking/delayed drug therapy 01/10/2015 - pending More than 6 year(s)   lacking/delayed drug therapy, lack of/delay in medical testing 19/05/2017 to 21/02/2018 9 month(s) and 3 day(s)   lacking/delayed drug therapy 19/11/2015 - pending More than 6 year(s)   26186/19 08/05/2019 Sergey Valeryevich MASHAGIN 1984 Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis lacking/delayed drug therapy 15/02/2019 to 21/06/2019 4 month(s) and 7 day(s)