Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 148
January 2012
Vladimir Vasilyev v. Russia - 28370/05
Judgment 10.1.2012 [Section I]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Failure to provide prisoner with adequate orthopaedic footwear: violation
Facts – While serving a life sentence, the applicant had a toe of his right foot and the distal part of his left foot amputated due to frostbite, but was unable to obtain appropriate orthopaedic footwear. A medical facility in which he had been detained in 1996 confirmed the need for such footwear, but stated that the relevant regulations on supplies to convicted detainees did not require that it be provided by the State. Another detention facility, where the applicant was held in 2001, said that it could not provide orthopaedic footwear because it could only be produced in another town and there was a long waiting list. The facilities where the applicant was held thereafter seemed to suggest that, in the absence of any disability status, the applicant did not need orthopaedic footwear. The applicant maintained that the lack of such footwear caused him pain and difficulties keeping his balance during long routine line-ups or while cleaning his cell. On account of this and various other medical conditions (including diabetes) he suffered from, he lodged a civil claim but was never transferred to the court in time for the hearings in his case, which was ultimately dismissed.
Law – Article 3: While the Court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegations as to insufficient medical assistance in respect of his other health conditions, his complaint concerning orthopaedic footwear raised serious concerns. At least one medical facility where the applicant had been detained in 1996 confirmed that he had been in need of such footwear, whereas another facility where he had stayed in 2001 gave a completely different justification for failing to provide him with it. However, in the absence of any indication that the applicant’s condition had improved after 2001, or that it had been properly reassessed, it was incumbent on the national authorities to react to the applicant’s situation of which they had been well aware. The lack of any appropriate solution to the applicant’s problem between 2005 and 2011 had caused him distress and hardship amounting to degrading treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 1: In essence the applicant complained about his inability to be present at the court hearings in his civil case. Even though Russian law provided for a party’s right to an oral hearing, it did not make any explicit provisions for detainees to be brought to the courthouse in civil proceedings. Article 6 did not guarantee the right to be heard in person in civil proceedings, but a more general right to an adversarial trial and to equality of arms, leaving to the State a free choice of the means to be used in guaranteeing these rights. Given the risk of practical difficulties in ensuring the applicant’s presence at the hearing, the national authorities could have held a session using a video link or in the detention facility, but neither of these options was considered. The applicant had also been unable to obtain legal aid for his civil case and the only possibility open to him had been to appoint a relative, friend or acquaintance to represent him in the proceedings. However, having refused the applicant’s request to appear in person, the domestic courts had not considered how to secure his effective participation in the proceedings by inquiring whether he had had a friend or a relative willing to represent him or the possibility of contacting such a person and giving him or her authority to act on his behalf. Considering that the applicant’s testimony would have constituted an indispensable part of the presentation of his case, the Court concluded that the domestic proceedings had not satisfied the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy