Information Note on the Court’s case-law 63

April 2004

Koval v. Ukraine (dec.) - 65550/01

Decision 30.3.2004 [Section II]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Adequacy of medical care of detainee: admissible

Facts : The applicant was detained in November 1997 on charges of forgery, unlawful currency transactions and abuses of power. Whilst in detention he had a heart attack and suffered a number of other diseases . A medical examination nevertheless concluded that the applicant could be held in custody in an Investigative Detention Centre (hospital). He was released on bail for health reasons in June 1998, when his wife deposited the requisite bail amount. In the e nsuing criminal investigations, a witness alleged that the applicant had attempted to influence his testimony. As it was considered that he had breached the bail conditions, and as new charges had been brought against him, the applicant was placed in hospi tal custody for a second time, from November 1998 until June 2000. He was then transferred to a Penitentiary to serve the sentence of imprisonment which the courts imposed on him. In the course of the proceedings which led to his applicant’s conviction, hi s bail was forfeited and his request to question a particular witness was refused. The applicant was amnestied and released in April 2001. He complains of a lack of adequate medical treatment from the moment of his initial detention until he was released, and of inadequate conditions of detention. He also complains that the procedure whereby the bail sum was forfeited to the State was unfair.

Admissible under Articles 3, 6 and 13: The Government’s preliminary objections (i) out of time: accepted for two of the periods of detention, but dismissed concerning the applicant’s detention in hospital between November 1998 and June 2000, a period which fell within the  six-month period; (ii) non-exhaustion: dismissed as it had not been shown that challenging the co nditions of detention in the courts would have been an effective remedy; (iii) non-applicability of Article 6: dismissed given that interference with witnesses was a criminal offence under domestic legislation and Article 6§ 1 was therefore applicable unde r its criminal head.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes