CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 9 November 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 36853/09 Sergey Aleksandrovich SMIRNOV against Ukraine lodged on 14 June 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Smirnov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1965 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Ukraine. On 3 April 2008 the applicant shot at a lawyer on the premises of the Dzerzhynskyy District Court. The lawyer was seriously injured. The applicant was arrested at the scene of the crime. He remained in detention throughout the criminal proceedings against him. On 14 April 2009 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal sentenced him to ten years and six months’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his property. That judgment was eventually confirmed on appeal. In April 2008 the applicant was taken to the temporary detention centre (SIZO) in Kharkiv. According to him, during his detention in the SIZO some of his letters did not reach the intended recipients, including the Court, and the guards opened letters sent to the applicant. In the latter regard, the applicant refers to an incident which allegedly took place in September 2009 and concerned a letter sent to the applicant by the Court. The applicant also states that he contracted various diseases, including chronic pancreatitis, hepatitis and cardio sclerosis, owing to the lack of food in the SIZO and its poor quality as well as poor sanitary and hygiene conditions. The applicant submits that he was not provided with adequate medical assistance in the SIZO and that his state of health worsened. In 2009 the applicant was informed by the SIZO authorities that his medical file had been lost. On 11 May 2010 the applicant was transferred to Slovyanoserbsk Correctional Colony. The applicant states that he was subjected to inhuman conditions in that prison (overcrowded cells, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, poor quality food and a lack of food, a lack of adequate medical treatment, and solitary confinement in disciplinary cells). The applicant states that prior to 12 October 2010 all letters sent to him by the Court were opened and read by the guards. They allegedly withheld unspecified documents sent to him by the Court. The applicant refers to such incidents happening in September 2009 and in May and August 2010. In May 2011 the applicant was transferred to Kharkiv Correctional Colony, in which he is currently detained. The applicant states that he is not being provided with adequate medical assistance in that prison. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention at Slovyanoserbsk Correctional Colony and of inadequate medical assistance while in detention. Relying on Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the interception and monitoring of his correspondence in detention. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he has not had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to his complaints about the conditions of his detention at Slovyanoserbsk Correctional Colony?   2.     Has the applicant received adequate medical assistance for his health problems while in detention, as required by Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, having regard to his allegations of the interception and monitoring of his correspondence by the authorities at the Kharkiv SIZO and Slovyanoserbsk Correctional Colony?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   5.     Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case to the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article   34 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s communication with the Court monitored by the authorities at the Kharkiv SIZO and Slovyanoserbsk Correctional Colony?