THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MIKHALEV AND SAVINOV v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 45095/19 and 28947/20)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 October 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Mikhalev and Savinov v. Russia,

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

Darian Pavli , President,

Andreas Zünd ,

Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,

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. In application no. 45095/19, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

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 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, which read as follows:

Article 3

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

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

11. In application no. 45095/19, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well ‑ established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement of an applicant in a metal cage during court hearings, and Maylenskiy v. Russia , no. 12646/15, §§ 28-40, 4 October 2016, and Klimov v. Russia , no. 54436/14, §§ 41-50, 4 October 2016, as regards the State’s failure to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of its obligation under Article 34 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, Tselovalnik v. Russia, no. 28333/13, §§ 70-77, 8 October 2015, and Kolesnikovich, cited above, §§ 82 ‑ 92), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

14. The Court further 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,

(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 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli

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

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

45095/19

05/08/2019

Mikhail Borisovich MIKHALEV

1982Kopteyeva Anastasiya Vladimirovna

Chita

heart condition

lack of/delay in medical testing, in particular lack of annual checks of the applicant’s pacemaker at a specialised medical institution, lack of/delay in medical examination, by a heart specialist (arrhythmologist)

IZ ‑ 1 Zabaykalskiy Region

since 07/09/2018

More than 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s)

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – detention in a metal cage during the hearings held at the Zabaykalskiy Regional Court through video conference

from 28/11/2018 to 14/02/2019;

Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition - On 29/07/2020 the Court applied an interim measure under Rule 39 indicating to the Russian Government to transfer the applicant to a specialised medical institution furnished with all necessary equipment for the complete check of the applicant’s pacemaker and his examination by an arrhythmologist; on 13/08/2020 the applicant was transferred to State-Funded Health Institution "Federal Centre for Cardiovascular Surgery" of the Ministry of Health of Russia in Khabarovsk. However, the applicant was subjected to a brief examination by a doctor who was not an arrhythmologist, and the pacemaker reprogramming was not provided (only magnet testing was made). No explanation to fully comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court was given by the Government.

19,500

28947/20

20/11/2020

Gennadiy Anatolyevich SAVINOV

1969hepatitis, HIV/AIDS

lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of/delay in medical testing, lacking/delayed drug therapy

19/08/2017 – pending

More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s)

15,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.