FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53525/19
Volodymyr Sergiyovych YEGOROV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 April 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Mattias Guyomar, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 2019,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
the FACTS
The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Sergiyovych Yegorov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1970.
The applicant was represented by Mr M.O. Tarakhkalo, a lawyer practising in Kyiv, Ukraine.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning inadequate medical treatment in detention was communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).
On 22 August 2017 the applicant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. On 13 October 2017 he was detained in the Bucha Correctional Colony no. 85 (“the colony”) where he still remains. The applicant has HIV, stage 4, and during his detention he has developed a number of serious accompanying diseases.
As of 20 March 2018, the applicant’s state of health deteriorated. He was frequently hospitalised and received inpatient medical treatment in the colony hospital, including antiretroviral therapy.
On 13 August 2018, upon decision by the medical commission of the hospital, the colony administration applied to the courts with a request to release the applicant on health grounds.
On 26 December 2018 the applicant requested that he be transferred to a civil hospital for treatment. The colony administration refused to do so stating that he received necessary treatment in the colony hospital.
On 27 March 2019 the Irpin City Court of Kyiv Region (“the city court”) rejected the request of the colony administration to release the applicant on health grounds. This decision was upheld by the Kyiv Court of Appeal on 29 May 2019. The courts examined the available materials and questioned the doctors of the colony hospital. The doctors confirmed that the applicant had contracted a number of serious chronic diseases as a consequence of HIV, that he spent most of his time in the colony hospital to treat those diseases, and that the hospital did not have sufficient conditions and medicine for more efficient treatment of the applicant’s diseases. However, the doctors considered that the applicant could continue to be detained but that he was at high risk of contracting other diseases with possible lethal consequences. The courts noted that although the applicant had serious diseases, which could be ground for release, his state of health allowed for his continued detention and he received adequate medical treatment in detention.
In March 2020 the applicant asked the colony administration to apply to the courts again with a request to release him on health grounds. The colony administration refused to do so noting that his state of health was satisfactory having regard to his chronic diseases.
In April 2020 the applicant submitted to the courts a request for release from detention. During the proceedings the doctors of the colony hospital were questioned. Doctor K. testified that the applicant was provided with necessary treatment, but that his diseases prevented him from serving the sentence. At the same time, doctor S. submitted that the applicant could continue to be detained and to receive necessary treatment in the colony hospital.
On 24 September 2020 the city court rejected the applicant’s request, finding that his state of health did not prevent him from serving his sentence. As it appears from the available case-file materials, the applicant’s appeal against the above decision is still pending.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained of the domestic courts’ refusal to release him on health grounds and the failure to ensure his treatment outside the colony and to provide him with medical assistance. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since he had not lodged a civil claim for compensation for inadequate medical treatment in detention. The Government further argued that there was no violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention as the domestic authorities had made appropriate arrangements for his treatment in detention. His medical condition had been monitored on a regular basis by the medical staff of the colony and he had received treatment prescribed in full. As soon as his state of health had deteriorated, he had been transferred to the colony hospital for inpatient treatment.
The applicant disagreed. In particular, he stated that there were no effective domestic remedies for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. He also alleged ineffectiveness of medical treatment in the colony since the domestic authorities had refused to transfer him to a civil hospital or to release him on health grounds.
The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, as these complaints are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.
It notes that Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds or to place them in a civil hospital to enable them to obtain a particular kind of medical treatment. It rather imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty. Article 3 of the Convention may require the release of a detainee only in exceptional cases and under certain conditions, where his or her health is absolutely incompatible with detention (see Chaykovskiy v. Ukraine, no. 2295/06, §§ 54-55, 15 October 2009).
Although the applicant complained in general about the lack of medical treatment in detention, this complaint was motivated by the failure to release him on health grounds or to transfer him for treatment to a civil hospital. However, given the medical documents and the expert opinions by the doctors during the domestic proceedings, the Court cannot conclude that the applicant’s health is absolutely incompatible with detention.
Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant has not been able to show any specific deficiencies in the treatment provided to him in prison. In particular, he has failed to prove before the domestic authorities or this Court that the medical treatment provided was inadequate and he has not elaborated in his submissions on which treatment of his diseases he considered to be “more efficient”. Indeed, the Court observes that the applicant was frequently hospitalised and received inpatient medical treatment in the colony hospital, including antiretroviral therapy.
In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 29 April 2021.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy