GLINYANIK v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

Published on 29 September 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 16059/17 and 44459/17
Yelena Pavlovna GLINYANIK and Others against Russia
and Aleksandr Kuzmich SERPIK against Russia
lodged on 22 February 2017 and 2 June 2017 respectively
communicated on 9 September 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern the deaths of the applicants’ close relatives, who suffered from HIV, tuberculosis and other concomitant illnesses, while in detention, allegedly as a result of medical negligence and/or lack of adequate medical treatment by the Russian authorities.

The applicants’ relatives were arrested in Crimea on suspicion of having committed criminal offences on various dates following the Russian Federation’s assertion of jurisdiction over the Crimean Peninsula (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 335, 16 December 2020).

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

In 2009 Mr Glinyanik was diagnosed with HIV and infiltrative tuberculosis. On 26 April 2016 he was arrested in Sevastopol on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence. On 29 April 2016 the “Leninskiy District Court of Sevastopol” ordered his pre-trial detention, which was subsequently extended despite the lawyer’s requests to release him in view of his health conditions.

On 18 July 2016 Mr Glinyanik was convicted by the same court and sentenced to two years and four months of imprisonment. On 5 August 2016 he underwent medical examination which established that he suffered from medical problems preventing his detention. After his medical examination he was provided with Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy on 10 August 2016. Due to a deterioration of his health, he was hospitalised by emergency services on 15 August 2016 with a serious health condition associated with nervous system damage and intoxication.

The applicants requested permission from the national court for themselves and a priest to visit Mr Glinyanik, which was granted. However, neither they nor the priest were allegedly able to meet with him before his death due to preventive measures imposed by the administration of the detention facility.

On 30 August 2016 the applicants’ relative died. According to the medical death certificate, Mr Glinyanik’s death was caused by pulmonary-cardiac failure, with HIV infection and tuberculosis listed as contributing factors.

The applicants requested the Russian authorities to initiate an investigation into Mr Glinyanik’s death allegedly caused by the lack of medical assistance, to no avail.

Mr Serpik suffered from HIV, Hepatitis C and tuberculosis. In 2015 he was recognised as a handicapped person (III group).

On 6 February 2015 he was arrested in Sevastopol on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence. Mr Serpik repeatedly requested medical treatment from the prison administration for his medical condition but his requests were refused. His parents initially provided him with the necessary medication, until it was no longer permitted.

On 27 August 2015 the “Gagarinskiy District Court of Sevastopol” found him guilty and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

Between November and December 2015, Mr Serpic was transferred from Sevastopol SIZO to a correctional colony in the Republic of Adygea (Russian Federation). According to statements made by his cellmates, the therapy was discontinued in the correctional colony and Mr Serpik’s state of health deteriorated. His complaints to the prison administration and the prosecutor’s office were to no avail.

On 2 December 2016 Mr Serpik died in the penitentiary facility. According to the death certificate, the cause of death was multiple organ failure in the context of HIV infection and multiple concurrent infections.

The applicants complain under Articles 2 of the Convention that the lack of adequate medical assistance in detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment for their relatives and ultimately led to their deaths. The applicants in application no. 44459/17 also invoke Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that although their relative’s state of health should have precluded his detention, the Russian authorities nonetheless placed him in pre-trial detention and failed to provide the necessary medical treatment, thereby causing him suffering.

Moreover, the applicant in application no. 44459/17 complains that the Russian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into his relative’s death, in a breach of their positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.

Additionally, the applicants in application no. 16059/17 raise complaints under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention, alleging that both they and a priest were unable to visit their relative in prison before his death.

Finally, the applicants in both applications complain under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2.  Having regard to the medical history of the applicants’ relatives, did the respondent Government fulfil their obligation to ensure that their lives were adequately protected, including through the provision of the requisite medical assistance, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 27-29, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts), and Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, §§ 68-70, 3 February 2011)?

3.  Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 VII), did the authorities carry out an effective investigation into the death of applicants’ relatives, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

3.  In application no.16059/17, were the restrictions on the applicants’ and the priest’s visit to their relative justified under Article 8 and Article 9 of the Convention respectively?

4.  Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints under Articles 2, 3, 8 and 9 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

List of applications:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
Nationality

Represented by

1.

16059/17

Glinyanik v. Russia

22/02/2017

Yelena Pavlovna GLINYANIK
Ukrainian

Vladimir Viktorovich GLINYANIK
Ukrainian

Yevgeniy Viktorovich GLINYANIK
Ukrainian

Oleksandr Vadymovych ZARUTSKYY

2.

44459/17

Serpik v. Russia

02/06/2017

Aleksandr Kuzmich SERPIK
Ukrainian

Deceased

Heir: Mr Andrei Aleksandrovich BOGATOV

Roman Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY