Communicated on 19 April 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 6433/18
Vasyl Mykolayovych SOKOLOVSKYY
against Ukraine
lodged on 30 January 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasyl Mykolayovych Sokolovskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and is detained in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”). He is represented before the Court by Ms O.V. Shapoval, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 1 December 2016 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of human trafficking.
On 2 December 2016 the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropentrovsk (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s detention. The relevant decision stated that he could otherwise escape and hinder the investigation. No further details were provided by the court in that regard. The court also set bail of 2,000,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) as an alternative measure.
On 5 December 2016 the applicant was released after he paid the bail.
According to the applicant, upon his release he was immediately arrested by the police on similar charges within other criminal proceedings.
On 6 December 2016 the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention. The relevant decision stated that he could otherwise escape and hinder the investigation. No further details were provided by the court in that regard. The court also set bail of UAH 3,000,000 as an alternative measure.
On 23 December 2016 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above-mentioned decision.
On 26 January and 22 March 2017 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 March and 20 May 2017 respectively. The relevant decisions stated that he could otherwise escape and hinder the investigation by influencing witnesses or destroying or concealing evidence. No further details were provided by the court in that regard.
On 4 May 2017 the criminal case against the applicant was forwarded to the District Court for trial.
On 13 May 2017, in the course of the preparatory hearing, the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 July 2017. The decision stated that he had no permanent place of residence, had been accused of a serious crime, and could otherwise escape and hinder the investigation by influencing witnesses or destroying or concealing evidence or continue with his criminal activity. No further details were provided by the court in that regard.
On 1 June 2017 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters changed the court competent to hear the applicant’s case to the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Trial Court”).
On 26 June 2017 the trial court resumed the preparatory hearing and extended the applicant’s detention until 24 August 2017. The Trial Court gave similar reasons for the applicant’s continued detention as those mentioned in the decision of 13 May 2017, without providing any further details.
On 7 August, 3 October, 30 November 2017 and 24 January 2018 the Trial Court extended the applicant’s detention for the respective periods, the most recent period being set to expire on 24 March 2018. The Trial Court reiterated the reasons for the applicant’s continued detention given previously, without providing any further details. In the decision of 24 January 2018 the Trial Court dismissed a request for release which the applicant had lodged the same day. No reasons were provided by the Trial Court to explain its decision.
B. Medical care provided to the applicant
According to the applicant, he has a long-term heart condition following a heart attack in 2011. In 2011 and 2016 he underwent stenting treatment.
On 30 November 2016 the applicant was taken to hospital by ambulance with severe chest pain. He was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease and unstable angina.
On 1 December 2016, after his state of health had improved, he was discharged from hospital.
Between 1 December 2016 and 24 June 2017 the applicant was detained in the Dnipropetrovsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre. He did not submit any information in respect of the medical treatment he was provided with during that period.
On 24 June 2017 the applicant was transferred to the SIZO.
On 26 June 2017 the penal authorities informed the applicant’s defence lawyer that the SIZO had no cardiologist on its staff.
From 27 to 30 September 2017 the applicant underwent treatment in the Stragesko Cardiology Institute. According to the relevant medical records, the applicant was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease, class III exertional angina (pectoris) and stage 3 hypertension. He was prescribed medication and placed under the supervision of a cardiologist.
On 19 January 2018 the applicant was examined by a cardiologist in the SIZO who recommended inpatient treatment in a cardiology institute. His overall condition was described as “moderately serious”.
On 22 January 2018 a forensic expert from the Kyiv City Clinical Bureau of Forensic Examinations issued a report, at the request of the applicant’s defence lawyer, stating the applicant had, inter alia, the following chronic illnesses: stage 3 hypertension; heart failure; class III exertional angina (pectoris); ischemic heart disease; post-infarction cardiosclerosis; and a post-stent condition. The expert recommended that the applicant, inter alia, be given ongoing medical treatment under a doctor’s supervision and a coronary intervention. He concluded that the applicant’s health would be at serious risk (including the risk of death) if he were not provided with adequate inpatient treatment outside the SIZO.
According to a certificate issued by the SIZO on 12 February 2018, the applicant remained under the supervision of the SIZO medical staff and did not require inpatient medical treatment. It was indicated in the certificate that the SIZO had no cardiologist on its staff.
On 27 February 2018 the SIZO governor informed the applicant’s defence lawyer that the applicant was receiving symptomatic treatment. It was mentioned that the provision of specialised and high quality medical treatment was not possible at the SIZO.
On 28 February 2018 the State-run institution “The Heart Institute” issued a consultative opinion, recommending that the applicant undergo inpatient cardiology treatment.
On 1 March 2018 the SIZO governor again informed the applicant’s defence lawyer, with reference to previous medical opinions, that the applicant required ongoing supervision by a cardiologist but that that was not possible at the SIZO because there was no cardiologist on its staff.
On 6 March 2018 a forensic expert from the Kyiv City Clinical Bureau of Forensic Examinations issued a report, at the request of the applicant’s defence lawyer, reiterating the conclusions given in the previous report of 22 January 2018.
According to the applicant, his health is deteriorating and he is not receiving proper medical treatment at the SIZO.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he has not been provided with adequate medical treatment and assistance whilst in detention in the SIZO. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he does not have an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3.
2. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the court decisions ordering his arrest on 2 December 2016 and subsequent detention were arbitrary and lacked reasoning.
3. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts failed to properly examine his request for release lodged on 24 January 2018.
4. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he has no enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly arbitrary detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the medical treatment and assistance provided to the applicant in detention been in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Does the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Were the court decisions ordering the applicant’s arrest on 2 December 2016 and subsequent detention free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 27‑31, 14 October 2010)?
4. Does the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
5. Does the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention allegedly in contravention of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 5 § 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 79-82, 19 January 2012, and Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, §§ 87-90, 17 October 2013)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy