I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SERZHANTOV v. UKRAINE.
Information
- Judgment date: 2019-07-11
- Communication date: 2016-11-10
- Application number(s): 57240/14
- Country: UKR
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.783022
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Valeryevich Serzhantov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973.
He is represented before the Court by Ms A.N.
Skalko, a lawyer practising in Mykolayiv.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a former drug addict suffering from HIV, hepatitis C and strong drug withdrawal symptoms.
From 2009 he received methadone substitution treatment at the Mykolayiv Central District Hospital (“the hospital”).
At the time of his arrest (see below) his daily dose of methadone was 280 mg. On 4 August 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion.
On the same date he was placed in a temporary detention centre (ITT).
On 7 August 2014 the Tsentralny District Court of Mykolayiv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months.
As regards the applicant’s argument that he might die in detention as no methadone could be provided to him by the SIZO, the court held that he would be taken to the hospital on a daily basis to receive his treatment.
He appealed.
On 8 August 2014 the Mykolayiv pre-trial detention centre (“the SIZO”), having conducted a medical examination, refused to admit the applicant as he required specialist medical treatment which could not be provided at the SIZO.
The relevant report stated that he needed urgent medical treatment at the hospital.
He was returned to the ITT.
Later that day the applicant was again taken to the SIZO and admitted.
From 4 August 2014 he was taken to the hospital on a daily basis to receive his methadone substitution treatment.
On 9 August 2014 the applicant’s neurologist started his detoxification, allegedly under the duress of the SIZO authorities.
In five days the dose of methadone given to him was reduced to 55 mg, which led to a considerable deterioration in his health.
By 12 August 2014 the applicant’s health had deteriorated to the extent that he was physically unable to get out of the prison van and had to receive his methadone inside the vehicle.
On the same date the applicant’s lawyer asked the prosecutor, SIZO governor and investigator dealing with the criminal case to allow the applicant to undergo inpatient treatment at the Mykolayiv Drug Rehabilitation Clinic (“the clinic”) in view of his critical state of health.
She also asked for the preventive measure applied in respect of him to be changed to a non-custodial one.
On 13 August 2014 the applicant was examined by the SIZO medical practitioner.
On the same date, given the continuing worsening of the applicant’s state of health, his addiction specialist (нарколог) prescribed him some supportive psychotropic drugs and recommended his urgent hospitalisation.
On 14 August 2014 the applicant was examined at the SIZO medical unit and advised to undergo a daily medical examination That day the applicant received his methadone lying on the floor of the prison van.
The head of the hospital informed the investigator that he was in a critical condition, insisting on his urgent hospitalisation and his detoxification to be gradually performed under medical supervision.
On the same date the prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s request of 12 August 2014, finding no grounds for his inpatient treatment or release.
On 14 August 2014 the head of the hospital informed the applicant’s lawyer that, contrary to the relevant medical regulations, the police had forced the hospital addiction specialist to sharply reduce the dose of methadone given to the applicant, informing her that they would bring him in for twenty days only.
He further observed that the statutory maximum reduction in methadone was 20 mg per week.
On 15 August 2014 the Court of Appeal for the Mykolayiv Region rejected the applicant’s request to have the preventive measure applied in respect of him changed.
On 18 August 2014 the applicant was examined at the SIZO medical unit and advised to undergo a medical examination at the clinic.
On 19 August 2014, in view of the deterioration in his health, the applicant was examined by the medical board of the clinic.
He was prescribed a gradual reduction in his methadone dose in accordance with the relevant medical regulations and, in the event of any further deterioration in his health, his immediate hospitalisation was advised.
On the same date, following the applicant’s request, the Court indicated under Rule 39 of its Rules that the Government secure by appropriate means inpatient treatment for the applicant appropriate for his condition and inform the Court of the measures undertaken and his state of health.
On 20 August 2014 the applicant was examined by the SIZO medical practitioner, who recommended his hospitalisation.
On 21 August 2014 the applicant was urgently admitted to the clinic, where he received the necessary medical treatment.
There is no information in the case file on any further developments.
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that there was a lack of prompt and adequate medical care available to him at the SIZO.
He submits, in particular, that despite his critical condition and the repeated recommendations of the hospital physicians, he was not hospitalised until 21 August 2014.
Judgment
FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SERZHANTOV v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 57240/14)
JUDGMENT
This version was rectified on 30 July 2019under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
STRASBOURG
11 July 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Serzhantov v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Yonko Grozev, President,Ganna Yudkivska,André Potocki, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 August 2014. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms A.N. Skalko, a lawyer practising in the city of Mykolayiv, Ukraine and Mr G.V. Tokarev, a lawyer practising in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine. [1]
3. Notice of the application was given to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). 4. On 19 August 2014 the Court applied an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and priority treatment was given to the case under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. On 10 November 2016, the interim measure was lifted. THE FACTS
5. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 6. The applicant alleged that he did not receive adequate medical care in detention. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicant complained that he was not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. 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.”
8. The Court notes that the applicant suffered from serious medical conditions, as indicated in the appended table, which affected his everyday functioning. 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 Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, and Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references) 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, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references). The Court stresses that medical treatment within prison facilities must be appropriate and comparable to the quality of treatment which the State authorities have committed themselves to providing for the entirety of the population. Nevertheless, this does not mean that each detainee must be guaranteed the same level of medical treatment that is available in the best health establishments outside prison facilities (see Konovalchuk v. Ukraine, no. 31928/15, § 52, 13 October 2016, and Sadretdinov v. Russia, no. 17564/06, § 67, 24 May 2016, with further references). 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has identified the shortcomings in the applicant’s medical treatment, which are listed in the appended table. The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-05, ECHR 2005‐II (extracts); Wenner v. Germany, no. 62303/13, §§ 54-81, 1 September 2016; and, mutatis mutandis, Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, §§ 66-73, 16 May 2013). Bearing in mind its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant did not receive comprehensive and adequate medical care whilst in detention. 11. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 89-95, 14 October 2010), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and it rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant. 14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 July 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv TigerstedtYonko Grozev Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate medical treatment in detention)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Principal medical condition
Shortcomings in medical treatment
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[2]
57240/14
15/08 /2014
Vladimir Valeryevich Serzhantov
26/08/1973
drug addiction, methadone substitution therapy
sharp reduction of methadone (from 280 mg to 215 mg in ten days)
08/08/2014 to
20/08/2014
13 days
7,500
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Principal medical condition
Shortcomings in medical treatment
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[2]
57240/14
15/08 /2014
Vladimir Valeryevich Serzhantov
26/08/1973
drug addiction, methadone substitution therapy
sharp reduction of methadone (from 280 mg to 215 mg in ten days)
08/08/2014 to
20/08/2014
13 days
7,500
[1] Rectified on 30 July 2019: This paragraph read “The applicant was represented by Ms A.N. Skalko, a lawyer practising in the city of Mykolayiv, Ukraine.” in the previous version. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.