CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 octobre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 189 October 2015 Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine - 40512/13 Judgment 22.10.2015 [Section V] Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Applicant induced to make statements undermining his application before the Court: failure to comply with Article * Facts – In 2012 the applicant, who was serving a prison sentence and had been diagnosed with HIV, complained that he had not received adequate medical assistance in detention, in particular, antiretroviral therapy (ART) treatment after his arrest. He also complained that he had been intimidated by the pre-trial detention centre authorities and their medical staff in order to induce him to make statements that the medical assistance he had received had been adequate and that possible shortcomings such as the absence of ART had to be imputed to the applicant himself. After a meeting with his lawyer, the applicant unsuccessfully complained about the alleged pressure to the prosecutor’s office. Law – Article 34: The Government had provided a handwritten note signed by the applicant stating that he had no complaints about the medical staff, in contradiction of his submissions before the Court, both before and after the date on the note. The Government had not specified the circumstances in which the note had been obtained. However, the Court was concerned that it had been obtained ten days after the Court had invited the Government under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court to ensure that the applicant was provided with the appropriate medical assistance. The Government had further submitted that the applicant’s allegations about psychological pressure on him had been duly checked and had not proved true. The Court, however, noted that the applicants’ complaints had been transferred by the prosecutor to the prison authorities, whose subordinates had been suspected of intimidating the applicant. Furthermore, all the evidence submitted by the Government had originated either from the prison staff or from the applicant’s fellow inmates, who had been under the control of the prison authorities. The Court was therefore not convinced by the Government’s arguments. Given the applicant’s consistent submissions and in the absence of any other credible explanation about the origin of the handwritten note, the Court accepted that the applicant had indeed been approached by the authorities to induce him to make statements which would undermine his application before the Court. In these circumstances it found that the State had failed to fulfil its obligation not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition. Conclusion : failure to comply with Article   34 (unanimously). The Court also found unanimously a violation of Article   3 on account of the inability of the pre-trial detention centre authorities to promptly diagnose the applicant’s condition and to provide prompt and comprehensive medical assistance, which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective and accessible remedy under domestic law for the applicant’s complaint in respect of the lack of appropriate medical assistance. Article 41: EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes