CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2018

.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 } .sFA487D43 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:200% } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBC0596D1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:200%; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 14 March 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 41203/16 Aleksandr Vladimirovich LOGVINENKO against Ukraine lodged on 12 July 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vladimirovich Logvinenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a life sentence. Since 17 March 2014 he has been detained in Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89 (“Prison no. 89”). He is represented before the Court by Ms   A.L.   Yushchenko and Mr D.I. Mazurok, lawyers practising in Kyiv.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date between 13 August 2008 and 3 December 2010, during medical treatment in the hospital of Kherson Prison no. 61, the applicant was diagnosed with active chronic hepatitis C (HCV). Between 2013 and 2016 the applicant underwent certain medical examinations, and he was prescribed hepatoprotectors and a special diet. During his detention in Prison no. 89 the applicant was kept in solitary confinement in a cell measuring 5.25   sq. m, and was allowed a daily outside walk lasting one hour. On 14 January 2016 the medical unit of Prison no. 89 issued a certificate stating that they were unable to perform special medical tests on the applicant which would have to be carried out in private laboratories, and they were also unable to provide him with appropriate medical treatment for his hepatitis C due to a lack of funds. On 18 January 2016 the prison authority of the Dnipropetrovsk Region replied to a request by the applicant for medical treatment of his hepatitis C, reiterating the same information provided in the certificate of 14   January 2016. According to information from the prison authorities dated 2 August 2016 and addressed to the Agent of the Government of Ukraine before the European Court of Human Rights, it was not possible to provide diagnostic and further medical treatment of the applicant’s hepatitis C in accordance with the national unified clinical protocol. According to a letter from the applicant of 29 November 2017, he has not yet received diagnostic and further medical treatment for his hepatitis C. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was not given access to appropriate medical assistance while detained in Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89, and that the conditions of his detention there from 17 March 2014 onwards were inadequate. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89 from 17 March 2014 onwards amount to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Was the medical assistance and care for hepatitis C provided to the applicant in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     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?