Published on 22 December 2025
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 53080/21
Alisa Aleksandrovna KHMILEVSKAYA
against Russia
lodged on 29 October 2021
communicated on 2 December 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant, a minor, is a Russian national who was born in 2019 and lives in Crimea. The application was lodged on 29 October 2021 on her behalf by her father, Mr Aleksandr Khmilevskiy, who is represented before the Court by Mr S. Maryushin, a lawyer practising in Crimea.
The applicant was diagnosed with type I progressive myoclonic epilepsy. On 4 May 2021 a medical board of the Children’s Clinical Hospital of Russia at the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University in Moscow prescribed treatment with Vigabatrin (Sabril). As this medication is not registered for use in Russia, it is available only on an exceptional basis, subject to a medical prescription and a formal request by the medical institution to the Ministry of Health of Russia.
Due to the failure of the “Ministry of Health of the Republic of Crimea” to supply the applicant with the prescribed medication, her father lodged a complaint with the domestic “court”, seeking an order to ensure that his daughter received the treatment. On 7 September 2021 the “Central District Court of Simferopol” recognised that the applicant suffered from a severe, life-threatening chronic condition and ordered that she be provided with the prescribed treatment without delay.
Following the non-enforcement of that judgment, the applicant submitted a request for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, asking that the domestic court’s judgment be enforced immediately. In their submissions, the Russian Government informed the Court that, on 22 November 2021 the applicant had received the first package of Vigabatrin (Sabril) from the available reserve and that steps had been taken to ensure its continued supply. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for an interim measure was refused by the Court.
Referring to Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Russian authorities failed in their obligation to provide her with the prescribed medical treatment for a serious illness which posed a grave risk to her life. She argues, in particular, that the State authorities had the opportunity to supply her with Vigabatrin (Sabril) prior to the domestic court’s decision, but failed to do so. Moreover, even after the judgment of the “Central District Court of Simferopol”, which was subject to immediate enforcement, the Russian authorities failed to act in a timely manner.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a breach of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with the specific medical treatment swiftly, as requested by her father?
3. What bearing does the alleged delay in the treatment of the applicant with Vigabatrin have on her health? Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s delayed access to the prescribed treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, §§ 111-22, 17 December 2009, and R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, §§ 148-62, 26 May 2011)?
The parties are invited to submit copies of the relevant medical documents and, where available, copies of expert reports assessing the applicant’s state of health during the period of the alleged prolonged failure to administer treatment with Vigabatrin (Sabril).
4. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 6 of the Convention on account of the alleged delay in the enforcement of the judgment of the “Central District Court of the city of Simferopol” of 7 September 2021 (see Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §§ 168-73, 1 July 2014 and Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions1996-VI))?