CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s1720DE1F { width:132.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .sF057D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:6pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MONAKHOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 36729/23 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 9 October 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Monakhov and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     Notice of the applications was given to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention. In application no. 8375/24, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally that they had not been afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. They relied on Article   3 of the Convention. 7.     The Court notes that the applicants suffered from serious medical conditions, as indicated in the appended table, which affected their everyday functioning. Therefore, they could have experienced considerable anxiety as to whether the medical care provided to them was adequate. 8.     The Court reiterates that the “adequacy” of medical assistance remains the most difficult element to determine (see Blokhin v.   Russia [GC], no.   47152/06, §   137, ECHR 2016). It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example,   Gorbulya v.   Russia , no.   31535/09, § 62, 6   March 2014, with further references and Pokhlebin v.   Ukraine , no.   35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that ‒ where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition ‒ supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee’s health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia , Ukhan v.   Ukraine , no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references and Kolesnikovich v.   Russia , no.   44694/13, §   70, 22   March 2016, with further references). The Court stresses that medical treatment within prison facilities must be appropriate and comparable to the quality of treatment which the State authorities have committed themselves to providing for the entirety of the population. Nevertheless, this does not mean that each detainee must be guaranteed the same level of medical treatment that is available in the best health establishments outside prison facilities (see, for instance, Sadretdinov v.   Russia , no.   17564/06, §   67, 24   May 2016, with further references and Konovalchuk v. Ukraine , no.   31928/15, § 52, 13   October 2016, with further references) 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has identified the shortcomings in the applicants’ medical treatment, which are listed in the appended table. The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Nevmerzhitsky v.   Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-05, ECHR 2005 II, Melnik v. Ukraine, no.   72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006 and Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no.   13448/07, §§ 68-78, 14 October 2010). Bearing in mind its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants did not receive comprehensive and adequate medical care whilst in detention. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     In application no.   8375/24, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well ‑ established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the case set out in the appended table. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In application no.   16030/24, the applicant also raised additional complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Logvinenko, cited above, §§ 89-95), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the failure of the authorities to provide the applicants with adequate medical care in detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of application no.   16030/24 inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 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 Shortcomings in medical treatment Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     36729/23 09/10/2023 Andriy Mykolayovych MONAKHOV 1976   Kushnirenko Valeriy Isayevych Kyiv hepatitis, hypertension, cirrhosis Lacking/delayed drug therapy   09/09/2023 to 01/11/2023 1 month(s) and 24 day(s)   The applicant suffered from HIV (stage IV), chronic hepatitis C, hypertension, and cirrhosis. While he received anti-retroviral therapy for HIV, there is no evidence that he was provided with the treatment for his other serious conditions. Despite a court order of 13/10/2023 requiring his medical examination and hospital treatment if necessary, the order was not complied with, and on 01/11/2023 the court released him under 24-hour house arrest, citing his life-threatening state of health. The authorities’ own request to an external medical centre for hepatitis drugs further demonstrated the inadequacy of the treatment provided. The   Government failed to show that the applicant’s medical care had been sufficient.     7,500 250     8375/24 22/03/2024 Roman Mykhaylovych NASIROV 1979   Kozachenko Viktoriya Ivanivna Kyiv gout, polyarthritis, Stage 2 hypertension, papillary thyroid cancer (in remission), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, severe left ventricular hypertrophy, gouty arthritis, significant high blood pressure Lacking/delayed drug therapy, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist   31/10/2022 to 24/05/2024 1 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 25 day(s)   Upon arrival at the detention facility, the applicant was diagnosed with stage II discirculatory encephalopathy, stage II hypertension, and cerebral atherosclerosis, later progressing to stage III hypertension with risk 3, hypertensive heart disease, ischemic heart disease, and other serious chronic conditions. Despite frequent episodes of high blood pressure and repeated medical complaints between November 2022 and November 2023, he received mostly symptomatic treatment, with limited diagnostic examinations and only two external consultations. Crucially, the High Anti-Corruption Court twice ordered his transfer to a hospital for comprehensive examination and treatment (15/12/2023 and 15/02/2024), but these orders were not enforced, with the authorities citing staff shortages. The applicant was only hospitalised briefly in April 2024. This persistent failure to comply with judicial orders and to provide timely, adequate treatment demonstrates serious shortcomings in ensuring appropriate medical care during detention. Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - insufficient reasons given for pre-trial detention, fragility of the reasons employed by the court, failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, 31/10/2022 - 24/05/2024 (see Korban v.   Ukraine , no.   26744/16, 4   July 2019),   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art.   5   §   3 (see Tymoshenko v.   Ukraine , no.   49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v.   Ukraine , no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention - (see Melnik v.   Ukraine , no.   72286/01, §§   113-16, 28 March 2006, Logvinenko v.   Ukraine , no.   13448/07, §§   84-85, 14 October 2010) 9,750 250     16030/24 10/06/2024 Volodymyr Anatoliyovych MATUSEVYCH 1949   Nadolya Yevgeniy Valeriyevich Kharkiv heart condition Lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of necessary conditions for treatment   17/07/2023 pending More than 2   year(s) and 1month(s) and 19 day(s)   The applicant has serious cardiovascular diseases, including ischemic heart disease, chronic heart failure, and a history of stroke. Despite multiple judicial orders between September 2023 and February 2025 requiring urgent examinations and specialised treatment, enforcement was inconsistent and often delayed. Several court-ordered examinations were not fully carried out due to a lack of medical personnel in the detention facility, and prescribed diagnostic tests were omitted. It was only after repeated interventions by investigating judges that the applicant was briefly hospitalised, confirming his serious condition and the need for ongoing outpatient follow-up, with recommendations to consider coronary bypass surgery or stenting. The authorities’ repeated failure to comply fully with court orders and to ensure timely specialist care highlights systemic inadequacies in safeguarding his health during detention.   7,500 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.