Published on 22 April 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 27950/23
Sigitas STROPUS
against Lithuania
lodged on 4 July 2023
communicated on 4 April 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant, who was serving a prison sentence and suffered from chronic hepatitis C, with prescribed medication.
While serving a prison sentence, the applicant was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C. On 27 June 2019 and several subsequent occasions, he was prescribed medication in relation to that diagnosis. However, the relevant authorities provided him with that medication only on 9 February 2021.
The applicant lodged a civil claim against the State with the Regional Administrative Court, requesting compensation of 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the failure to provide him with the prescribed medication.
On 30 May 2022 the Regional Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him EUR 1,550. On 5 April 2023 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld that decision. The courts acknowledged that from 27 June to 30 September 2019 the Marijampolė Correctional Facility and from 1 October 2019 to 8 February 2021 the Prison Department Hospital had failed to provide the applicant with the prescribed medication. The courts held that those authorities had an obligation to plan in advance and to stock up on necessary medication, especially that intended for the treatment of particularly dangerous diseases. At the same time, the courts noted that during the period at issue the applicant had been treated with other, non-prescription medication, there had not been any signs that his condition had worsened, and moreover, a blood test of 15 September 2021 had revealed no signs of hepatitis C in his blood.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the compensation awarded to him by the domestic courts for the authorities’ failure to provide him with the prescribed medication was insufficient.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Can the applicant still be considered a victim of the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 thereof, in view of the domestic courts’ decisions (see Milovanović v. Serbia, no. 56065/10, § 96, 8 October 2019, and the cases cited therein)?
2. Without prejudice to the answer to the previous question, was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the fact that during the period from 27 June 2019 to 8 February 2021 he was not provided with the medication prescribed to him (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-37, 23 March 2016)?