CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 décembre 2022

.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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 10903/16 Anna Olegovna VOROBYEVA against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   December 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11   February 2016, 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 applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr A.S. Kovalskiy, a lawyer practising in Kurgan, Kurgan Region. The applicant’s 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”). THE LAW The locus standi of the applicant’s next-of-kin The Court takes note of the applicant’s death and considers that Mr   N.   Yudin, the minor son of the applicant represented by Ms   L.   Vorobyeva, the applicant’s mother, has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires a continuation of the examination of the case. Complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) The applicant complained that she had not received adequate medical assistance in respect of her medical conditions listed in the appended table, and that no effective domestic remedies regarding the quality of the medical care in detention had been available to her. She relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 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 applicant received essential medical treatment in respect of her conditions. The defects in the quality of medical care alleged by the applicant are either insignificant or not supported by sufficiently strong evidence. Therefore, they cannot be accepted by the Court. It follows that the applicant’s complaint under Article   3 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded. In addition, 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 applicant’s complaint about the quality of the medical treatment in detention is manifestly ill-founded, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in her case. 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides that Mr   N.   Yudin, the minor son of the applicant represented by Ms   L.   Vorobyeva, has standing to pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead; Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 January 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles   3 and   13 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention) 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 10903/16 11/02/2016 Anna Olegovna VOROBYEVA   1983 Died in 2016   Kovalskiy Aleksandr Sergeyevich   Kurgan tuberculosis, anaemia, heart failure, cachexia, gastritis, second-degree disability No adequate treatment of tuberculosis, intolerance to prescribed drugs   27/09/2015 to 16/03/2016 5 month(s) and 19 day(s)