Communicated on 10 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 51497/08 Aleksandr Nikolayevich NAUMOV against Russia lodged on 16 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Naumov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Moscow .

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

A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 4 October 2005 Mr P. complained to the police of money extortion for discontinuation of criminal proceedings against Mr P. ’ s next of kin in relation to his banking activities. According to the applicant, on the same day , acting under the police supervision, Ms P. approached Mr I. and the applicant (at the time, a former FSB officer), and offered a sum of money to them. Apparently, they refused. A similar meeting took place on 6 October 2005. The applicant and I. were arrested on 10 October 2005 after another meeting at which they had accepted 5,000 US dollars from the P. family.

On 12 October 2005 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow considered that the investigating authority failed to comply with the requirement for bringing Mr I. before a court within forty-eight hours after the arrest. Thus, the court ordered his release. Having examined a similar application in respect of the applicant, another judge of the district court also ordered release but then immediately ordered the applicant ’ s detention. Apparently, the applicant missed the statutory time-limit for appeal and the detention order became final.

On 6 April 2006 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 10 June 2006.

In May 2006 the case against the applicant was set for trial.

On 9 June 2006 the trial court held a preliminary hearing and ordered, inter alia , the applicant ’ s continued detention pending trial.

At the trial hearing on 7 November 2006 the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged an application for release. The trial judge dismissed it.

On 21 November 2006 and 16 February 2007 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention for three months each time. Apparently, the applicant appealed but his appeals were not examined.

On 16 or 19 February 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s application for release. The applicant appealed. His statement of appeal was registered by the District Court on the same date.

Further applications for release were dismissed on 12, 28 March and 17 April 2007. According to the applicant, his appeals against the related court decisions were not examined.

On 11 May 2007 the District Court issued a new three-month extension of the applicant ’ s detention pending trial. Apparently, the applicant appealed but his appeal was not examined.

Apparently, also on 11 May 2007 the applicant lodged a (separate) complaint seeking, inter alia , release from detention. On 6 July 2007 this complaint was forwarded to the District Court. On 30 July 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s application for release. It follows from the text of the court decision that it was amenable to appeal before the Moscow City Court. On 2 August 2007 the District Court registered the applicant ’ s appeal (see below).

In the meantime, on 16 August 2007 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention for three months. Apparently, the applicant appealed but his appeal was not examined.

At the trial, the applicant argued that he had met the P. family in order to provide them with his own expertise in the area of banking and acted as an intermediary for retaining the services of advocates and other professionals who could assist the P. family in seeking discontinuation of the criminal case against their next of kin.

On 2 October 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant of attempted fraud and sentenced him to four years ’ imprisonment. The court stated that there had been no “operational experiments” (an investigative technique under the Operational-Search Activities Act) on 4 and 6 October 2005 and that there were no reasons for granting the applicant ’ s request for ordering disclosure of any evidence (for instance, covert audio recordings, etc.) by the investigating authority or for ruling on the lawfulness of such “experiments”. The trial court concluded that the applicant had extorted money from the P. family while knowing that he had no official power to discontinue a criminal case.

On 30 January 2008 the City Court considered that the decision of 30 July 2007 had been issued during the trial in reply to a motion from the defence ; thus, this decision was not amenable to appeal, as follows from Article 355 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On 13 February 2008 the City Court upheld the trial judgment in substance.

The applicant then served his sentence and was released in July 2008.

B. Medical care, conditions of detention and transport

From 10 to 12 (or 13) October 2005 the applicant was kept alone in a small cell in a temporary detention centre in Moscow. There was no bed in cell. He had no medication and no possibility to use compression stockings, which he allegedly required for his medical condition.

Allegedly, until late December 2005 he was kept in a cell designed for twenty detainees but accommodating thirty inmates in detention facility no. 77/2. Later on, he spent one month alone in the medical unit of the detention centre . It is unclear whether he was provided with any medical care there.

Until late 2007 (or early 2008) the applicant was kept in ordinary cells or in the medical unit of detention facility no. 77/2 in Moscow . In the meantime, between May and November 2006 (and, apparently, on some other occasions) he was admitted to the hospital attached to detention facility no. 77/1.

According to the applicant, the cells in the medical unit of the facility (as well as cell no. 716 in the hospital in facility no. 77/1) had no dining table; the toilet was not separated in any way from the main area; the applicant had no outdoor exercise. In the applicant ’ s submission, he also suffered from the conditions of transport: on many occasions, the travel between the facility and the courthouse took 7-8 hours when he was transported in cold vehicles in cramped conditions and without medical supervision. Similarly, he also alleges that he was transported between detention facilities in vehicles which were not equipped for ill detainees; the travels took 10-12 hours without food or medication.

In early 2006 the investigator in charge of the applicant ’ s criminal case ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant to determine whether he required treatment in a medical facility; whether the absence of treatment and supervision threatened his life; noting the recommendation for surgery, whether his continued detention threatened his life and whether it was practicable to carry out surgery in the detention facility.

In March-April 2006 the applicant was subjected to a forensic medical examination.

The expert panel concluded that the applicant ’ s treatment in a hospital in June 2005 had stabilised his medical condition; at that time no urgent surgery was necessary; to avoid complications, the applicant required “dynamic supervision by a cardiologist and a surgeon”; the previously indicated scheme of treatment could be continued in the detention facility. The experts indicated, however, that before June or July 2006 the applicant had to be subjected to a study of blood coagulation and echocardiography to determine whether he required surgery. The experts also specified that if there are acute indications of worsening he should be admitted to a hospital without delay. Lastly, the experts stated that pre-surgery examinations and surgery should be carried out a specialised cardio-hospital.

In reply to a renewed request from the applicant ’ s lawyer, on 1 March 2006 the deputy chief officer of detention facility no. 7/7/2 stated that the applicant ’ s medical condition was complex and serious and that it required a number of tests and further examinations, which could only be carried out in specialised medical facilities.

Between May and November 2006 the applicant was admitted to the therapist unit of the hospital attached to detention facility no. 77/1.

In September 2006 the applicant was examined in a specialised cardio ‑ hospital. It appears that the medical prescription included “further in ‑ patient examination in the cardio-hospital for preparing surgery”. A subsequent prescription from the cardio-hospital indicated that heart surgery should be carried out “in the nearest time”.

The applicant ’ s lawyer sought to obtain various medical opinions and certificates indicating the applicant ’ s medication condition in relation to the continued application of detention pending investigation and trial in respect of the applicant.

Between June and December 2006 the applicant was taken to court hearings in the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow. On a regular basis emergency paramedics were called to provide medical assistance to the applicant.

In January 2007 the head medical officer of detention facility no. 77/2 indicated that it was not practicable to carry out surgery in the detention facility. Nor was it practicable to carry out weekly blood tests, which were meant to disclose whether the intake of medication was appropriate.

The certificate issued by the detention centre on 21 March 2007 states as follows:

“... [The applicant ’ s] left atrial myxoma significantly extended, which, in the specialists ’ opinion, was life-threatening; the diagnosis has been confirmed by a forensic medical expert report. The related surgery is only practicable in a specialised cardio-hospital. Failure to take expedient measures relating to this surgery, which is highly recommended by the specialist cardio-facility in Moscow , is capable of leading to death. [The applicant ’ s] current medical condition is such as to prevent his participation in court hearings; he requires urgent admission to a cardio- facility ...

His admission to such facility for further examination, surgery and post-surgery supervision is not practicable because of the need for a special convoy for a considerable period of time ...

Thus, we consider that, given the need for an urgent surgery, [the applicant] should be released from detention ...”

On an unspecified date after February 2008, the applicant was taken to a detention facility in Voronezh and then to another one in Nizhniy Novgorod. Allegedly, the applicant suffered from the conditions of transport, without medical supervision or possibility to take medication and to use compression stockings.

The applicant was released in July 2008.

In 2011 he received heart surgery.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article s 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention that the authorities put his life at risk, on account of delayed or inadequate medical care provided to him. He refers in particular to the need for (urgent) surgery and weekly blood testing. He alleges that his detention became incompatible with his state of health.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was there a violation of Article 2 or 3 of the Convention, on account of the issue of medical care? In particular:

- Did the applicant require weekly blood testing? Was it provided to him?

- At any point between 2005 and 2008 was there any averred urgency for surgery and related matters (pre-surgery testing, in-patient examinations in a cardio-hospital, etc )? If yes, did the delay in addressing this urgency amount to a violation of Article 2 or 3 of the Convention ( see, by way of comparison, Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia , no. 41550/02 , §§ 43-53 , 5 July 2011 ; and Geppa v. Russia , no. 8532/06 , § 82 , 3 February 2011 ) ?

- Was there a breach of Article 2 or 3 of the Convention on account of the attitude adopted by the national authorities vis-à-vis the applicant ’ s medical condition requiring admission to a specialised cardio-hospital, at least, for deciding on the course of action in respect of his diseases (see Akhmetov v. Russia , no. 37463/04 , § 83 , 1 April 2010 ; and Andrey Gorbunov v. Russia , no. 43174/10 , §§ 66-84 , 5 February 2013 ) ?

- Did the applicant ’ s detention between late 2005 and early 2008 (in a cell or medical unit of a detention facility or in the hospital) become incompatible with his medical condition?