THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 51497/08 Aleksandr Nikolayevich NAUMOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 October 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda , President, Pere Pastor Vilanova , Georgios A. Serghides , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 2008,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Naumov , is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Moscow. He was represented before the Court by Ms O. Preobrazhenskaya , a lawyer practising in Strasbourg.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin .

The applicant alleged that he had not been given appropriate medical care whilst in detention and that the conditions of his detention had been detrimental to his poor state of health.

The above complaint was communicated to the Government on 10 June 2015, and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 10 October 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted fraud. At that time he was suffering from several illnesses, including atrial myxoma , a non-cancerous heart tumour.

Two days later, after his detention by the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow had been authorised, he was placed in remand prison no. 77/2 in Moscow. He was moved from the remand prison to a medical facility on several occasions to undergo medical treatment.

According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention and treatment were poor and detrimental to his state of health, which warranted treatment in a specialist civilian hospital. He had raised that issue in the proceedings concerning the extension of his pre-trial detention. The District Court dismissed his arguments and extended his detention.

In September 2006 the applicant was examined in a specialist heart clinic and was recommended “further in-patient examination to prepare for surgery”. A subsequent recommendation from the hospital indicated that heart surgery should be carried out “in the very near future”.

The applicant ’ s wife and lawyer filed complaints with the detention authorities, the general prosecutor ’ s office, and the Ministry of Justice of Russia referring to the failure to provide him with the recommended treatment whilst in detention, but the surgery was not performed.

On 2 October 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years ’ imprisonment. The sentence was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court and became final on 13 February 2008.

In the spring of 2008 the applicant was sent to correctional colony no. 11 in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region to serve his sentence.

On 8 July 2008 he was released on parole. Following his release the applicant did not sue the detention authorities in respect of the quality of medical care received in prison.

It appears that the applicant had heart surgery in a civilian hospital three years after his release from detention.

B. Relevant domestic law

The provisions of the domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013), and Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that the authorities had put his life at risk by failing to provide him with adequate medical care in detention and keeping him detained until 2008.

THE LAW

The applicant ’ s complaint falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

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

The Government put forward two lines of argument. Firstly, they sought rejection of the claim because the applicant had failed to seek damages in court and had thus failed to exhaust an effective domestic remedy. Secondly, they argued that he had been afforded adequate medical care whilst in custody.

The applicant submitted that during his detention he had complained about the quality of the medical care to the custodial authorities, the prosecutor ’ s office, and the Ministry of Justice of Russia, and had also raised the issue in the proceedings dealing with the extension of his pre-trial detention. Thus, he had drawn the attention of the authorities to his grievance. The proceedings for damages would not have been effective, and he had therefore decided not to use them. Lastly, he argued that he had not been offered heart surgery and various important medical examinations.

The Court reiterates that in previous cases against Russia concerning an alleged lack of adequate medical assistance for detainees, it has clearly distinguished between two situations. It has found that no effective remedies existed in Russia for applicants who have complained of an ongoing deterioration in their health in view of the absence of proper medical care in detention (see, among other authorities, Reshetnyak , cited above, § 80; and Dirdizov v. Russia , cited above, § 91). However, when an applicant was no longer in a situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities ’ failure to provide them with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v. Russia , no. 38758/05 , § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v. Russia , no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia , no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia , no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).

Given that the applicant ’ s complaint was lodged with the Court after his release from detention, his situation falls into the latter category. For the reasons set out in the judgments cited above, the Court is not satisfied with the applicant ’ s argument about the ineffectiveness of a claim for damages. It considers that the aforementioned remedy was capable of providing redress in respect of his complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success and therefore should have been exhausted (see also Gusev v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 49038/12, § 24, 24 March 2015, and Mumryayev v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 52025/13, § 14, 21 April 2015). The Court considers that that avenue had been open to the applicant, but he had not availed himself of it. The Court therefore concludes that his complaint must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 November 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Branko Lubarda              Deputy Registrar President