I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in GORDIYENOK v. RUSSIA and 1 other application.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-03-06
  • Communication date: 2024-09-05
  • Application number(s): 47120/22;19373/23
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 2, 2-1, 3, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment
    Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
    Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.903752
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 30 September 2024 Applications nos.
47120/22 and 19373/23Aleksey Anatolyevich GORDIYENOK against Russiaand Islam Lechayevich TURPULKHANOV against Russia (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 5 September 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised.
This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.
In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention relating to inadequate medical treatment in detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no.
47152/06, §§ 120-50, ECHR 2016, Reshetnyak v. Russia, no.
56027/10, §§ 49-101, 8 January 2013 and Koryak v. Russia, no.
24677/10, §§ 70-110, 13 November 2012).
APPENDIX – List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention(inadequate medical treatment in detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No.
Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Principal medical condition Shortcomings in medical treatment Dates 47120/22* 16/09/2022 Aleksey Anatolyevich GORDIYENOK 1982 Oleg Valeryevich Shirokov Nizhniy Tagil HIV/AIDS, loss of teeth lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lacking/delayed drug therapy 30/09/2007 to 31/12/2020 13 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s) Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 30/05/2022, compensation of 200,000 Russian roubles (approximately 2,200 euros) 19373/23* 24/01/2023 Islam Lechayevich TURPULKHANOV 1980 tooth pain lack of urgent dental care 02/02/2020 to 30/10/2020 8 month(s) and 29 day(s) Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 03/11/2022, compensation of 6,000 Russian roubles (approximately 70 euros) Published on 30 September 2024 Applications nos.
47120/22 and 19373/23Aleksey Anatolyevich GORDIYENOK against Russiaand Islam Lechayevich TURPULKHANOV against Russia (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 5 September 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised.
This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.
In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention relating to inadequate medical treatment in detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no.
47152/06, §§ 120-50, ECHR 2016, Reshetnyak v. Russia, no.
56027/10, §§ 49-101, 8 January 2013 and Koryak v. Russia, no.
24677/10, §§ 70-110, 13 November 2012).
APPENDIX – List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention(inadequate medical treatment in detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No.
Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Principal medical condition Shortcomings in medical treatment Dates 47120/22* 16/09/2022 Aleksey Anatolyevich GORDIYENOK 1982 Oleg Valeryevich Shirokov Nizhniy Tagil HIV/AIDS, loss of teeth lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lacking/delayed drug therapy 30/09/2007 to 31/12/2020 13 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s) Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 30/05/2022, compensation of 200,000 Russian roubles (approximately 2,200 euros) 19373/23* 24/01/2023 Islam Lechayevich TURPULKHANOV 1980 tooth pain lack of urgent dental care 02/02/2020 to 30/10/2020 8 month(s) and 29 day(s) Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 03/11/2022, compensation of 6,000 Russian roubles (approximately 70 euros)

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GORDIYENOK AND TURPULKHANOV v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 47120/22 and 19373/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
6 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gordiyenok and Turpulkhanov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained principally that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 8. The Court notes that the applicants suffered from serious medical conditions, as indicated in the appended table, which affected their everyday functioning. Therefore, they could have experienced considerable anxiety as to whether the medical care provided to them was adequate. 9. The Court reiterates that the “adequacy” of medical assistance remains the most difficult element to determine (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 137, ECHR 2016). It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, and Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014) and that ‒ where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition ‒ supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee’s health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references). 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has identified the shortcomings in the applicants’ medical treatment, which are listed in the appended table. The Court has already found a violation with regard to issues similar to those in the present case (see Blokhin, cited above, §§ 120-50; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 49-101, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 70-110, 13 November 2012). Bearing in mind its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants did not receive comprehensive and adequate medical care whilst in detention. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in this regard. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Kolesnikovich, cited above, §§ 82-92; Tselovalnik v. Russia, no. 28333/13, §§ 70-77, 8 October 2015; and Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, §§ 77-83, 9 January 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
(inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Principal medical condition
Shortcomings in medical treatment
Dates
Amount awarded for pecuniary, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
47120/22
16/09/2022
Aleksey Anatolyevich GORDIYENOK
1982

Shirokov Oleg Valeryevich
Nizhniy Tagil
HIV/AIDS, loss of teeth
lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lacking/delayed drug therapy

30/09/2007 to
31/12/2020
13 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)

Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 30/05/2022, compensation of RUB 200,000 (approximately 2,200 euros)
12,800
19373/23
24/01/2023
Islam Lechayevich TURPULKHANOV
1980

tooth pain
lack of urgent dental care

02/02/2020 to
30/10/2020
8 month(s) and 29 day(s)

Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 03/11/2022, compensation of RUB 6,000 (approximately EUR 70)
10,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GORDIYENOK AND TURPULKHANOV v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 47120/22 and 19373/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
6 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gordiyenok and Turpulkhanov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained principally that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 8. The Court notes that the applicants suffered from serious medical conditions, as indicated in the appended table, which affected their everyday functioning. Therefore, they could have experienced considerable anxiety as to whether the medical care provided to them was adequate. 9. The Court reiterates that the “adequacy” of medical assistance remains the most difficult element to determine (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 137, ECHR 2016). It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, and Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014) and that ‒ where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition ‒ supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee’s health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references). 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has identified the shortcomings in the applicants’ medical treatment, which are listed in the appended table. The Court has already found a violation with regard to issues similar to those in the present case (see Blokhin, cited above, §§ 120-50; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 49-101, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 70-110, 13 November 2012). Bearing in mind its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants did not receive comprehensive and adequate medical care whilst in detention. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in this regard. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Kolesnikovich, cited above, §§ 82-92; Tselovalnik v. Russia, no. 28333/13, §§ 70-77, 8 October 2015; and Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, §§ 77-83, 9 January 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
(inadequate medical treatment in detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Principal medical condition
Shortcomings in medical treatment
Dates
Amount awarded for pecuniary, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
47120/22
16/09/2022
Aleksey Anatolyevich GORDIYENOK
1982

Shirokov Oleg Valeryevich
Nizhniy Tagil
HIV/AIDS, loss of teeth
lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lacking/delayed drug therapy

30/09/2007 to
31/12/2020
13 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)

Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 30/05/2022, compensation of RUB 200,000 (approximately 2,200 euros)
12,800
19373/23
24/01/2023
Islam Lechayevich TURPULKHANOV
1980

tooth pain
lack of urgent dental care

02/02/2020 to
30/10/2020
8 month(s) and 29 day(s)

Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 03/11/2022, compensation of RUB 6,000 (approximately EUR 70)
10,000

No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Principal medical condition
Shortcomings in medical treatment
Dates
Amount awarded for pecuniary, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
47120/22
16/09/2022
Aleksey Anatolyevich GORDIYENOK
1982

Shirokov Oleg Valeryevich
Nizhniy Tagil
HIV/AIDS, loss of teeth
lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lacking/delayed drug therapy

30/09/2007 to
31/12/2020
13 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)

Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 30/05/2022, compensation of RUB 200,000 (approximately 2,200 euros)
12,800
19373/23
24/01/2023
Islam Lechayevich TURPULKHANOV
1980

tooth pain
lack of urgent dental care

02/02/2020 to
30/10/2020
8 month(s) and 29 day(s)

Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 03/11/2022, compensation of RUB 6,000 (approximately EUR 70)
10,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.