FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 42281/10 Avtandil C HITEISHVILI against Georgia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 23 October 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Síofra O ’ Leary, President, Lәtif Hüseynov , Lado Chanturia , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 July 2010,

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

1. The applicant, Mr Avtandil Chiteishvili is a Georgian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Samtredia . He was represented before the Court by Ms S. Abuladze , a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.

2. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze , of the Ministry of Justice.

The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. Between 29 August 2004 and 27 August 2013 the applicant served his sentence for armed robbery in various penal institutions in Georgia.

5 . On 29 August 2004 the applicant was placed in Tbilisi prison no. 5. According to him, there was severe overcrowding and unsanitary conditions in his cell. He left that institution on 3 June 2006, after he had been diagnosed with tuberculosis.

6 . On 3 June 2006 the applicant was placed in a specialised establishment for inmates with tuberculosis. He was put on a DOTS (Directly Observed Treatment, Short course) programme, the strategy for the detection and treatment of tuberculosis recommended by the World Health Organisation, and successfully finished the treatment on 16 November 2007.

7. On 23 April 2010, while in Rustavi prison no. 16, the applicant complained of ill health and requested to have a comprehensive medical examination performed. On 7 May 2010 he filed a complaint regarding the lack of response from the prison administration.

8 . On 20 May 2010 the applicant was consulted by a therapist. According to the relevant medical note, the applicant had been suffering from chronic viral Hepatitis C (HCV) since 2003, with periods of aggravation. The applicant was referred to the prison hospital for further examinations.

9. On 21 May 2010 the applicant was moved to the prison hospital where further confirmed his HCV diagnosis.

10 . On 8 June 2010 the applicant was examined by an infectious disease specialist. Noting that the applicant had been diagnosed with HCV since 2003, she prescribed him various vitamins and medications.

11 . On 21 July 2010 the applicant had an HCV RNA (hepatitis C virus RNA nucleic acid amplification test) and several other examinations performed in order to determine the course of treatment. However, the HCV was found to be “non-determinable,” signifying that the virus was not active and did not necessitate treatment.

12. On 26 July 2010 the infectious disease specialist noted the results of the tests performed on 21 July 2010 (see paragraph 11 above) and concluded that no antiviral treatment was necessary.

13 . On 18 April 2011 a repeated HCV RNA test yielded identical results.

14 . On 21 March 2012 another HCV RNA test was performed. It revealed the presence of the HCV. The applicant was administered the relevant anti-viral therapy under the supervision of the infectious disease specialist.

15 . On 12 November 2012 the applicant successfully finished the prescribed course of treatment. The follow-up HCV RNA test did not reveal the presence of HCV.

COMPLAINTS

16. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had contracted Hepatitis C infection in prison, and that the competent authorities had not administered appropriate medical treatment.

17. The applicant also complained that he had contracted tuberculosis in prison, and that the prison conditions in Tbilisi prison no. 5 had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

A. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention related to the applicant ’ s HCV infection

18. The applicant complained that he had contracted HCV in prison, and that the competent authorities had not administered appropriate medical treatment. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

19. The Government submitted that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had contracted HCV in prison as the medical documentation revealed that the applicant had been suffering from chronic HCV prior to his detention. In any event, the Government had provided the applicant with adequate medical supervision and treatment.

20. After the communication of the application to the respondent Government, the applicant introduced a new complaint concerning the alleged contraction of pulmonary tuberculosis in prison for which he had finished treatment in 2007. The Court observes that the initial application form and correspondingly the complaints communicated to the Government concerned only the applicant ’ s alleged contraction of HCV in prison and the related treatment. Therefore, in the Court ’ s view, the new complaint cannot be considered as an elaboration of the applicant ’ s original complaint on which the parties have commented and hence these matters cannot be taken up in the context of the present application (see, Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia , no. 17012/09 , § 25, 11 December 2012, with further references). The scope of the Court ’ s analysis will thus be confined to the assessment of the alleged contraction of the HCV in prison and the related medical treatment.

21. The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons were summarised by the Court in the cases of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references); Goginashvili v. Georgia (no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011); Irakli Mindadze , cited above , §§ 39-40 ) ; and Jeladze v. Georgia (no. 1871/08, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012).

22. The Court observes at the outset that the applicant ’ s claim that he had contracted HCV in prison is not supported by the medical documentation before the Court. In particular, the applicant ’ s medical files indicate a history of HCV prior to his imprisonment (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above). Furthermore, and in any event, the information submitted by the Government indicates that the applicant ’ s health issues related to HCV were under constant medical supervision, and he was given standard treatment involving medication and vitamins. According to the medical files, his condition did not necessitate antiviral treatment in 2010 and 2011 (see paragraphs 11-13 above). As regards the reactivation of HCV in 2012 observed as part of the periodic testing of the applicant ’ s health condition, the applicant received the relevant anti-viral treatment resulting in the full remission of the disease (see paragraphs 14-15 above).

23. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention that he had contracted HCV in prison and that no adequate treatment had been administered to him in that respect should be rejected as manifestly ill ‑ founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

B. Other alleged violations of the Convention

24. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about conditions of detention and severe overcrowding in Tbilisi Prison no. 5. The Court notes that the applicant left that institution on 3 June 2006 as he was placed in a specialised establishment for inmates with tuberculosis (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above), whereas the current application was submitted to the Court on 19 July 2010. In accordance with its case-law, the Court will not consider detention conditions as a continuous situation in circumstances where the complaint concerns an episode, treatment or particular detention regime attached to an established period of detention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 76-78, 10 January 2012). In the present case, the applicant did not claim that the material conditions of detention in the two establishments in question had been identical in any aspect. As the applicant did not return to Tbilisi Prison no. 5 after 3 June 2006 (see, a contrario , Răducanu v. Romania , no. 17187/05, § 73, 12 June 2012), the Court cannot conclude that there was a continuous situation. The above complaint under Article 3 of the Convention was therefore lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Kitiashvili v. Georgia , no. 37747/08, § 33, 23 November 2017, with further references).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 November 2018 .

Claudia Westerdiek Síofra O ’ Leary Registrar President