SUCHKOV A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 50166/13
Andrey Ivanovich SUCHKOV against Russia
and 13 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Peeter Roosma, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Andreas Zünd, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in respect of these application,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate medical assistance in detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

1. Joinder of the applications

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

2. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention)

The applicants complained that they had not received adequate medical assistance in respect of their medical conditions listed in the appended table. They 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.”

The Court observes that the general principles regarding the quality of medical care in detention have been stated in several of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, ECHR 2016, and Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 91-95, 15 December 2015).

The Court further reiterates that it adopts conclusions after evaluating all the evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012). In cases regarding conditions of detention and medical assistance in detention the burden of proof may, under certain circumstances, be shifted to the authorities (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; see also Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005 IX). Nevertheless, an applicant must provide an elaborate and consistent account of the State’s alleged failure to provide him with the required medical assistance, mentioning the specific elements which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on any other grounds.

Having examined the materials submitted, including extensive medical evidence submitted by the Government, the Court considers that the applicants received essential medical treatment in respect of their conditions. The defects in the quality of medical care alleged by the applicants are either insignificant or not supported by sufficiently strong evidence. Therefore they cannot be accepted by the Court.

In view of the above, the Court finds that the present complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

3. Complaints under Article 13 of the Convention

Some applicants also complained that no effective domestic remedies regarding the quality of the medical care in detention had been available to them in violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found above that the applicants’ complaints about the quality of the medical treatment in detention are manifestly ill-founded, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in their cases.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

4. Remaining complaints

Mr Buntov (application no. 77634/16) also raised other complaints under various provisions of the Convention.

The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 December 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention

(inadequate medical treatment in detention)