CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 53387/22 Vitaliy Viktorovych MATUKHNO against Ukraine lodged on 18 November 2022 communicated on 11 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was serving a life sentence since 1995. He first complained of pain in his throat in April 2022. On 19 July 2022 a biopsy confirmed stage 4 oropharynx cancer (at the root of the tongue). According to the prison authorities, the applicant underwent some chemotherapy. On 21 September 2022 a commission of senior specialists at the Lviv Regional Oncology Centre concluded that, given the state of advancement of the cancer, palliative care was indicated for the applicant. On 15 November 2022 the Centre’s commission confirmed, in view of the evolution since the last assessment, that the advanced state of the applicant’s tumor (T3N2M0), made the applicant unsuitable for any means of anti-tumor treatment. Palliative care was recommended. The commission noted that the applicant was receiving opioid painkillers. The applicant lodged a request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. He   alleged that his diagnosis had not been prompt and that he was not being provided with adequate medical care, notably that he was not being given appropriate food and sufficient painkillers. On 9 December 2022 the Court granted the request and indicated to the Ukrainian Government that the applicant should be provided with an adequate medical examination in order to assess his current state of health with an updated diagnosis, and with requisite medical care and that the proper medical facility equipped to provide the medical examination and medical care should be identified. On 21 December 2022 the applicant submitted an application form raising complaints under (i) Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention alleging that he did not receive adequate medical treatment while in detention and that his state of health was incompatible with his detention, which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and (ii) under Article 34 of the Convention alleging that the Government had failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court and that he had been put under pressure by domestic authorities to write a statement which would contradict his previous submissions to the Court concerning his conditions of detention and medical treatment received. On 3 February 2023 the applicant died. On 7 February 2023 the Court lifted the interim measure. In May 2023 the authority form was submitted, which was signed by the applicant’s alleged life partner who expressed her wish to pursue the application. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does Ms Yuliya Maksimenko, declaring herself the applicant’s partner, have standing to pursue the present application on the applicant’s behalf?   2.     Did the authorities comply with their duty under Article   2 of the Convention to protect the welfare of persons in custody, on account of alleged failure to provide the applicant with adequate medical care and treatment (see, for example, Kats and Others v. Ukraine , no. 29971/04, § 104, 18   December 2008; Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia , no. 35254/07, §§ 90-93, 22   November 2011)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case? In particular: (a)   was the applicant provided with the appropriate medical care and treatment (see, for example, Ukhan v. Ukraine , no. 30628/02, §§ 72-74, 18   December 2008; Logvinenko v. Ukraine , no. 13448/07, §§ 68-78, 14   October 2010)? (b)   having regard to the nature and severity of the applicant’s health issues, was the detention itself compatible with his state of health (see, for example, Mouisel v. France , no. 67263/01, §§   36-48, ECHR 2002-IX; Gülay Çetin v.   Turkey , no. 44084/10, §§ 100-125, 5 March 2013; Dorneanu v. Romania , no.   55089/13, §§ 75-80, 28 November 2017)?   4.     Has there been any hindrance by the respondent State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to: (a)   the measures taken in response to the Court’s decision to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see Konovalchuk v.   Ukraine , no. 31928/15, §§ 75-81, 13 October 2016)? (b)   the information submitted by the domestic authorities dated 25   November 2022 that the applicant, according to his handwritten statement, had asked to withdraw his application (see Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine , no.   40512/13, §§ 105-110, 22 October 2015)?