CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 August 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34890/19 Iskra RIGATOU against Greece lodged on 3 July 2019 communicated on 10 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a female prisoner detained at Elaionas prison. She is also applicant in application no. 15330/18 ( Rigatou and Others v. Greece) lodged on 23 March 2018 concerning the conditions of detention and medical care in the prison. Her present application, first introduced by a request under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, concerns the alleged irregular provision of medical care as regards her oncology disease, with which she was diagnosed in December 2018. On 4 July 2019 the Court decided not to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. More specifically, the applicant complains that due to shortage of personnel in the Prison Transfers Division, her transfers to Agios Savvas Hospital, where her follow-up medical appointments were scheduled to take place, were cancelled or delayed and thus her treatment was not adequate. The applicant further complains about the alleged presence of male prison officers in several of the medical procedures at issue, during some of which she was allegedly forced to remain handcuffed. With reference to the above and relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she was not provided with appropriate medical assistance for her oncology disease and that she was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Further, relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains about lack of privacy and confidentiality of her medical examinations in view of the prison officers’ alleged presence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the medical assistance and treatment provided to the applicant as regards her oncology disease in compliance with the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention?   The parties are requested provide evidence related to the applicant’s medical treatment as regards her oncology disease, to specify the dates of the applicant’s scheduled medical appointments and her respective transfers and to comment on any delays or rescheduling in her appointments ( see, for instance, Nogin v. Russia , no. 58530/08, §§ 81-98, 15 January 2015, Ivko v.   Russia , no. 30575/08, §§ 91-112, 15 December 2015, Solopova v. Ukraine , no.   17278/18, §§ 10-13, 27 June 2019, with further references). The parties are further invited comment and provide evidence related to the applicant’s claims that she was forced to remain handcuffed during medical examinations (see, for instance, Henaf v. France , no. 65436/01, §§ 47-60, ECHR 2003-XI, Tarariyeva v.   Russia , no. 4353/03, §§ 106-111, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts), Filiz Uyan v.   Turkey , no. 7496/03, §§ 30-35, 8 January 2009) in the presence of prison officers (see, for instance, Duval v. France , no. 19868/08, §§   48 ‑ 53, 26   May 2011).   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention in reference to the lack of privacy and confidentiality of medical examinations?   The parties are invited to comment and provide evidence related to the applicant’s claim that prison officers were present during her medical examinations (see, for instance, Duval , cited above, §§ 54-55).