THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44214/11
Yelena Pavlovna SUSLOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 July 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 June 2011,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Yelena Pavlovna Suslova, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Vladimir. Her application was lodged on 23 June 2011. She was represented before the Court by Mr F. Bagryanskiy, Mr A. Mikhaylov and Mr M. Ovchinnikov, lawyers practising in Vladimir.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
The applicant argued that she had not been provided with effective medical care in detention and that she had not had effective domestic remedies at her disposal to complain about her grievance.
On 3 September 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
A. Circumstances of the case
1. Detention and medical treatment
On 22 April 2010 the applicant, who at that time suffered from obesity, hypertension and a heart condition, was arrested by the police on suspicion of attempted drug trafficking. A court authorised her detention on the following day.
After initially being taken to a temporary detention centre, the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. IZ-33/3 in the village of Kolchugino, Vladimir Region, on 7 May 2010.
During the admission process at the remand prison she informed the medical staff that she suspected that she had Type 2 diabetes. The healthcare officer did not detect any particular or troublesome health problems.
A week later the applicant’s lawyer complained to the head of the detention facility that she was not receiving treatment for diabetes, although her health had worsened significantly. In particular, her legs and face had swelled and she had developed numbness on the left side of her body. The lawyer also complained that the medical authorities had failed to properly record and address her complaints.
The applicant’s medical file shows that in late May 2010 she was examined by a prison doctor on several occasions and received treatment for an acute respiratory disease.
On 7 June 2010 the prison doctor examined the applicant after she complained of numbness and thirst. She was diagnosed with obesity, Type 2 diabetes that was moderately serious, hypertension and polyneuropathy (damage to or disease of the peripheral nerves). She began to receive treatment for diabetes and hypertension. The head of the remand prison informed the applicant’s lawyer about the examination of 7 June 2010 and the treatment she had been prescribed.
In late June 2010 the applicant received treatment for a urinary infection.
Following another request from her lawyer, on 8 July 2010 she was transferred to a regional prison hospital, given blood and urine tests, and examined by the head of the prison hospital and the head of the medical department of the Regional Service for the Execution of Sentences. The two officials confirmed the previous diagnosis and recommended an examination by an endocrinologist. They also noted that the patient was receiving the necessary treatment and that she was to be examined by the relevant specialists on 14 July 2010 to determine the further course of her treatment.
On 13 July 2010 doctors from the regional prison hospital examined the applicant and noted that inpatient treatment was not required. The applicant’s lawyer was informed about the examination. The authorities offered to allow him to arrange an examination by an independent doctor if he had doubts about her diagnosis or treatment, but the lawyer did not respond.
According to the applicant, between late July and early August 2010 her medical treatment was interrupted on several occasions owing to her being moved between detention facilities.
On 29 September 2010 the court altered her arrest to house arrest and she was released.
2. Court proceedings concerning the quality of medical care
In the meantime, on 6 September 2010 the applicant’s lawyer brought a claim against the detention authorities, arguing that his client had been deprived of medical attention until 7 June 2010 and that she had then been treated by a prison physician without any specific diagnostic procedures, testing or examinations. He also alleged that the custodial authorities had disregarded her heart, stomach, kidneys and back conditions.
On 13 October 2010 the Leninskiy District Court examined the claim. It established that on 7, 24 and 13 May; 7 and 15 June; 29 July; 2 and 6 August; and 7 and 14 September 2010 the applicant had been examined by healthcare professionals and had received the requisite medical treatment in full. Noting that the claim was not supported by any medical evidence, the court dismissed it as unfounded. After an appeal by the applicant the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal on 23 December 2010.
В. Relevant domestic and international law
The relevant provisions of domestic and international law on the general health care of detainees are set out in Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 55‑62, 15 December 2015).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of a lack of proper medical care in detention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, she further submitted that she had not had an effective domestic remedy at her disposal to complain about the quality of the medical treatment in detention.
THE LAW
A. Alleged violation of article 3 of the Convention
As regards the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the Government submitted that the applicant had been under close medical supervision and had received the required medical treatment in a timely fashion. They also noted that her condition had not been life-threatening.
Alleging that her medical records were inaccurate, the applicant complained that she had not been examined by a doctor before 7 June 2010. She also argued that the prison authorities had not provided her a consultation with an endocrinologist and had not adequately addressed her other health problems pertaining to her heart, stomach, kidneys and back.
At the outset the Court observes that in cases concerning medical care in prison it most often has had to deal with complaints of prisoners affected with severe or very severe ailments, making their normal daily functioning very difficult (see Bagdonavičius v. Lithuania, no. 41252/12, § 76, 19 April 2016, and Kulikowski v. Poland (no. 2), no. 16831/07, § 71, 9 October 2012).
The present case differs from those cases in that the applicant’s diabetes, which did not require regular insulin injections, did not affect her everyday functioning in the same way as many serious illnesses do. However, the Court is ready to accept that she might have experienced considerable anxiety as to whether the medical care provided to her was adequate.
The Court cannot accept the applicant’s allegation concerning a lack of medical attention until 7 June 2010. It notes that the domestic courts established that at least on several occasions in May 2010 she had been examined by prison medical staff and had received some treatment. Being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role, and having regard to the documents submitted by the parties, the Court sees no reason to depart from the domestic court’s findings on the matter.
The Court is satisfied that the applicant is right in her argument that the authorities failed to arrange an examination by an endocrinologist. However, there is nothing to suggest that the lack of that examination undermined her health or the strategy for her treatment, in particular because she was released less than three months after the recommendation for such an examination had been made, and because during that time she was under close medical supervision.
In the light of the above, and taking into account the absence of any expert opinion on the quality of her medical care in detention and the finding by the domestic courts on the issue, the Court rejects the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Alleged violation of article 13 of the Сonvention
As regards the applicant’s complaint about the lack of an effective remedy for her allegations under Article 3, the Court notes that since it has found above that the applicant’s complaint under that provision is manifestly ill-founded, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in the present case. It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (see Yeremenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 42372/08, §§ 35-38 ECHR 2016).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 July 2017.
Fatoş AracıBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy