Communicated on 1 June 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 549/17
Deivis URBONAVIČIUS
against Lithuania
lodged on 20 December 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Deivis Urbonavičius, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1970 and is detained in Alytus.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint before the domestic courts asking to award him 86,800 euros (EUR) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant stated that while he had been detained in Kaunas Remand Prison, he asked the prison administration to allow him to have a continuous positive airway pressure device recommended to him by a doctor in the Prison Hospital to treat sleep apnoea. The applicant stated that the prison administration had refused to allow him to have the device, and he had been experiencing serious health issues.
On 12 October 2015 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicant’s complaint in part and awarded him EUR 1,100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court held that the applicant had been arrested on 3 June 2012 and transferred to Kaunas Remand Prison on 4 June 2012. Upon his placement in Kaunas Remand Prison, the applicant was examined by doctors on 5 June 2012. The applicant indicated that he had undergone nose and throat surgery because of his snoring. During his consultation with the doctor in November 2012, the applicant indicated that he had had sleep apnoea and asked for a continuous positive airway pressure device. In September 2013, the doctor recommended that the applicant be allowed to use this device. During the same month, the applicant asked the Kaunas Remand Prison Administration to allow him to have the device. His request was refused because under domestic law such a device was not among the items that could be given to detainees by their spouses or close relatives. The applicant then asked the Kaunas Remand Prison Administration to allow his relatives to give him the device. This request was also refused because in the applicant’s medical history and in the document issued by the Prison Hospital there were no medical indications that the applicant had needed the device.
Against this factual background, the court stated that the prison administration had failed to provide the applicant with the same level of healthcare available to persons who were not detained. It was clear from the case file that the applicant had asked the prison administration to allow him to purchase and use the continuous positive airway pressure device twice. The refusal of the Kaunas Remand Prison Administration was unfounded because there was a recommendation issued by the doctor. The court held that the applicant had a right to compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage from 3 October 2013 (when his request was refused by the prison administration) onwards. The court thus decided to award the applicant EUR 1,100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The applicant appealed against the decision of the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court. On 4 October 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision in its entirety.
B. Relevant domestic law
According to Article 24 § 1 of the Law on Pre-trial detention, detainees have a right to receive one postal package or a package of clothing, bedding (except for a blanket, a mattress and a pillow) or footwear every three months, as well as an unlimited amount of small packages with press, envelopes, postage stamps and writing paper. According to Article 24 § 2, one postal package cannot exceed ten kilograms, and packages handed to the detainee cannot exceed fifteen kilograms.
According to Article 45 § 1 of the Law on Pre-trial Detention, medical treatment provided to persons in pre-trial detention has to be equal to that provided to persons who are not detained. According to Article 45 § 3, it is obligatory to perform a health check on persons newly transferred to a remand prison. According to Article 45 § 4, if a detainee is in need of emergency medical aid and it is not possible to provide it in the Prison Hospital, such aid can be provided in other State or municipal health care institutions. The supervision of a detainee has to be ensured.
According to the Rules on Purchase, Possession, and Recording of Medical Products in Detention Facilities, approved on 24 April 2012 by Order No. V-156 of the Head of the Prison Department, detainees and convicted inmates, wishing to purchase or to accept from other persons who are not detained medicine or medical products, prescribed or recommended by a doctor, have to submit a written request to the relevant facility (Point 42). The head of the facility may allow the purchase of the medical products if the detainee or convicted inmate has enough funds and if he or she has a prescription or recommendation from the doctor (Point 43). The purchase of medical products is organised by a pharmacist or other responsible person (Point 45). Medical products received from persons who are not detained are transferred to the health care service of the detention facility or to a hospital unit where the patient is treated (Point 46).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the refusal of the authorities to allow him to purchase and use the device recommended by his doctor to treat his medical condition.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant’s detention amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account his medical condition (see Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, § 93, 27 November 2014; Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 137, ECHR 2016; and Bujak v. Poland, no. 686/12, § 68, 21 March 2017)? In this connection, reference is made to the fact that the Kaunas Remand Prison refused to allow the applicant to purchase and use a device recommended by his doctor to treat his medical condition.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy