FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52025/13
Petr Petrovich MUMRYAYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 April 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 June 2013,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Petr Petrovich Mumryayev, is a Russian national, who was born on 19 October 1962 and lived until his arrest in the village of Dubrovino, Novosibirsk Region. He is serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Novosibirsk Region.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. In December 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. On 16 October 2011 he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. The judgment became final on 29 February 2012. On 15 March 2013 he was transferred to correctional colony no. 18 in Novosibirsk to serve his sentence.
5. Documents produced by the applicant to the Court show that on his arrival to the colony he was diagnosed with dorsopathy (also known as the spinal disease), contracture of the third figure on the right hand, sensorineural hearing loss of the 4th-5th degree, chronic ethmoiditis, left sided chronic otopyosis, atherosclerosis of the lower extremities and pulmonary tuberculosis in the stage of clinical cure.
6. The applicant alleged that despite his suffering from a serious medical condition characterised by a severe pain and requiring the use of a strong pain relief medication and anti-inflammatory drugs, he did not receive any medical assistance in detention. His complaint related to the period in March and April 2013 when his chronic otitis and back problems were in remission.
7. Following the applicant’s complaint to the Novosibirsk Regional Prosecutor, prosecution authorities assessed the quality of the medical care afforded to him in detention. In a letter sent to the applicant and the head of correctional colony no. 18 on 23 May 2013 a deputy prosecutor of the Novosibirsk Region acknowledged that the medical personnel of the correctional colony had failed to prescribe the applicant required nonnarcotic analgesics and nonsteroid anti-inflammatory medicaments. They also did not subject the applicant to electrocardiogram and clinical blood tests which were necessary to assess his atherosclerosis.
8. As appears from the medical record provided by the Government related to the period after April 2013, the applicant was under permanent medical supervision pertaining to his chronic conditions. In particular, he regularly underwent clinical testing, fluorography and X-ray examinations, received anti-tuberculosis seasonal treatment to prevent the relapse of the infection, was regularly seen by a variety of specialists and was subjected to expert medical assessment in relation to his chronic illnesses. His health grievances were heard, evaluated and effectively addressed.
COMPLAINTS
9. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the lack of proper medical assistance in detention and about the absence of an effective remedy to complain about the quality of the medical care.
THE LAW
10. The Government, firstly, argued that the applicant’s complaint about the quality of the medical services afforded to him in detention was manifestly ill-founded given that he had been under the permanent and comprehensive medical supervision and had received necessary in-patient and out-patient care in respect of his conditions, including chronic ones. The Government further submitted that the complaint about the quality of the medical services should, in any case, be dismissed for the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as the applicant had failed to lodge a complaint with a court. The Government explained that a tort claim, as well as the complaint to the administration of the detention facility, the regional Service for Execution of Sentences and a prosecutor’s office, should be considered as an effective remedy capable of affording a claimant adequate redress.
11. The applicant maintained his complaints.
12. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of effective domestic remedies is closely linked to the Government’s argument that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint of poor medical care. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to consider these two issues simultaneously.
13. The Court observes that it has already, on a number of occasions, examined, in detail, the effectiveness of various domestic remedies suggested by the Russian Government and/or employed by applicants in cases concerning alleged lack of adequate medical assistance in detention. In this respect, the Court has clearly distinguished between two situations. It has found that no effective remedies existed in Russia for applicants who complained of ongoing deterioration of their health in view of a lack of proper medical care in detention (see, among others, Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, § 80, 8 January 2013; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 91, 27 November 2012; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 95, 13 November 2012). At the same time, when applicants complained of the detention authorities’ failure to provide them with adequate medical services when they no longer found themselves in the situation they complained about, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008). The applicant’s situation in the present cases falls under the latter category. The Court observes that the applicant lodged the present application with the Court in June 2013. His complaints, however, relate to the period before May 2013, when he had not, as the prosecutor’s office had confirmed, received the medical care of the established standards, having not been subjected to certain tests and having not been given necessary medication. The applicant did not make any specific grievances about the quality of the medical services provided to him in detention after May 2013. Furthermore, the documents provided by the parties to the Court do not disclose any flaws in the medical services afforded to the applicant after May 2013.
14. The Court observes that the Russian law undoubtedly provided the applicant with the possibility of bringing tort proceedings against the State. He, however, he did not avail himself of that avenue. The applicant did not explain why he had not lodged a tort action against the administration of the colony and/or its medical personnel and the materials of the case contain no indication that such a claim had been impossible or even impractical (see Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, cited above, § 36; Buzychkin v. Russia, cited above, § 84, with further references).
15. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their Convention obligations under this provision. The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint under the Convention. Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see Menteÿ and Others v. Turkey, 28 November 1997, § 89, Reports 1997‑VIII).
16. The Court does not see any reason in the present case to depart from its well-established approach (see Shchebetov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 89‑92; Buzychkin v. Russia, cited above, § 84; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 34 and 36) and concludes that the remedy available to the applicant satisfied the conditions laid down in paragraph 15 above. It follows that the complaint under Article 13 is manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and that it must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
17. Given the abovementioned finding, the Court further concludes that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to his complaint about the poor quality of the medical assistance in detention. It follows that his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 21 May 2015.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy