CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 février 2017

.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 } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 }   Communicated on 2 July 2015 and 18 February 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 54503/08 Viktor Viktorovych KOROL against Ukraine lodged on 7 November 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Viktor Viktorovych Korol, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Zvenigorodka. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 7 February 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and robbery. On 22 Match 2006 he was placed in the Cherkassy pre-trial detention centre (SIZO). On 29 January 2008, during his detention in the Cherkassy SIZO, the applicant underwent a medical check and was diagnosed with tuberculous pleurisy of the right lung. On 30 January 2008 the applicant was taken to the Cherkassy Regional Tuberculosis Dispensary where he was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the right lung complicated with exudative pleurisy. After confirmation of diagnosis the applicant started receiving medical treatment at the medical unit of the SIZO. According to the medical certificate issued by the Head of the Cherkassy SIZO on 6 February 2008, it was the applicant’s first contraction of tuberculosis. There is no information in the case-file about the nature of treatment the applicant was receiving while being in the Cherkassy SIZO. On 30 May 2007 the Zvenigorodka Local Court of Cherkassy Region found the applicant guilty of robbery, theft, gangsterism, illegal weapon handling and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. On the day when the judgment became final the applicant was transferred to the Kherson Correction Colony no. 61. The date of transfer to the colony has not been specified by the applicant. Since 18 July 2008 the applicant has been undergoing medical treatment in the tuberculosis hospital within the Kherson Correction Colony no. 61 according to the DOTS strategy (Directly Observed Treatment, Short ‑ course). According to an undated medical certificate provided by the applicant in 2010, the applicant’s state of health was satisfactory, however, he required further hospital treatment of tuberculosis. There is no information in the case-file about the applicant’s current state of health as well as about the results of the treatment. B.     Relevant domestic law and international material The domestic and international material pertinent to the issue of medical treatment of tuberculosis is summarised in the judgments in the cases of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, §§ 47-51, 28 March 2006) and Kondratyev v.   Ukraine , no. (5203/09, §§ 50-59, 15 December 2011). COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he had contracted tuberculosis while in pre-trial detention and that he was not given access to appropriate medical assistance while detained. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     What kind of medical treatment and assistance was provided to the applicant throughout his detention? Was such treatment sufficient with regards to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?