FOURTH SECTION      CASE OF OSIPENKOV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 31283/17)             JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 29 January 2019   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Osipenkov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Georges Ravarani, President, Marko Bošnjak, Péter Paczolay, judges,and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 8 January 2019,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 31283/17) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Osipenkov (“the applicant”), on 27 April 2017.2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms N.G. Okhotnikova, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr Ivan Lishchyna, of the Ministry of Justice.3. On 23 May and 10 July 2017 the Court applied an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Priority treatment was given to the case under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. On 19 July 2017 the application was communicated to the Government.4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 1963.6. From 22 July 2016 the applicant was held in the Chernigiv pre-trial detention centre (“the SIZO”) as a suspect in respect of a crime.7. On 8 September 2016, while being held at the SIZO, the applicant suffered acute myocardial infarction. He was treated at Kozeletsk Town Hospital from 8 until 19 September 2016.8. On 27 September and 6 October 2016 the applicant underwent examinations at the Chernigiv Regional Cardiological Centre. He was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease; acute myocardial infarction; third‑stage hypertonic disease; a hypertensive heart; and second-degree heart failure. The applicant was prescribed outpatient medical treatment and a further heart examination. On the last mentioned date he was recommended to undergo a cardiac ventriculography test.9. On 7 February 2017, in response to a request for information lodged by the Chernigiv regional prosecutor’s office, Chernihiv City Hospital (“the Hospital”) noted that the applicant’s state of health posed a high risk to his life.10. On 15 March 2017, the Hospital informed the SIZO authorities that the cost of a cardiac ventriculography test was 4,000 hryvnias (UAH – approximately 140 euros (EUR)). There is no information regarding whether that test was undertaken.11. Following a deterioration in the applicant’s health, on 23 May 2017 the Court indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that they should immediately ensure that the recommended treatment was available and provided to the applicant and that the applicant was placed in a specialised medical institution for medical treatment – including surgery, if appropriate.12. On 23 May 2017 the applicant was transported to the Hospital, where the previous diagnosis was confirmed (see paragraph 8 above). On the same day he was returned to the SIZO and provided with outpatient treatment.13. On 25 May 2017 the Hospital informed the SIZO that in order for the applicant to be provided with qualified medical advice, he needed a cardiac ventriculography test. In view of the complexity of the applicant’s state of health, before the cardiac ventriculography test the Hospital requested that the applicant have an additional consultation at the Amosov Cardiology Institute.14. According to the Government, the SIZO administration offered the applicant transportation to the Kyiv SIZO in a prison van with a view to his undergoing a further medical examination at the Amosov Cardiology Institute. On 16 June 2017 the applicant refused that offer, arguing that he could not be transported in a prison van owing to his state of health. The case file contains a statement by the applicant dated 16 June 2017 addressed to the head of the SIZO, according to which he did not refuse transportation but insisted on it being in a form that was compatible with his state of health.15. Following a further deterioration in the applicant’s health, on 22 June 2017 the ambulance took him to the Hospital, where the previous diagnosis (see paragraph 8 above) was confirmed, electrocardiography and cardiac ventriculography tests were recommended, and he was prescribed some medication.16. The case file contains an extract from the applicant’s medical file bearing no date and signed by the head of the SIZO medical unit; according to the extract, the SIZO had no cardiologist on its staff and high-quality medical treatment was not possible at the SIZO. The applicant did not receive the prescribed medication in full owing to a lack of funds. The extract furthermore stated that he remained under the supervision of the SIZO medical staff and did not require inpatient medical treatment.17. On 10 July 2017 the Court reiterated its previous decision (see paragraph 11 above) indicating that the authorities were to ensure that the applicant was transported promptly, and in conditions commensurate with his state of health, to a specialised medical institution to undergo the necessary medical examinations, such as a cardiac ventriculography test, in order that a correct diagnosis could be made and the applicant could receive medical treatment, if necessary. On 8 August 2017 the Government submitted that the applicant had not been transported to a specialised medical institution, as had been indicated by the Court, owing to his refusal of 16 June 2017 (see paragraph 14 above).18. According to the available information, from August 2016 until September 2017 the applicant underwent more than fifteen examinations, both within the SIZO and at civilian hospitals, and an ambulance was called twelve times to provide him with urgent treatment.19. On an unspecified date the applicant was released from custody. On 7 November 2017 he underwent an examination at the Amosov Cardiology Institute. According to the results of the examination, he was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease, exertional angina (class III), postinfarction cardiosclerosis, and atherosclerosis of the aorta and of the coronary arteries. It was recommended that he undergo surgery for his ischemic heart disease, together with further inpatient treatment. There is no information regarding whether the applicant has undergone the recommended surgery and treatment.THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION20. The applicant complained that he had not been given access to appropriate medical assistance while detained and that he had had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the above-mentioned complaint. He 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 [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”A. Admissibility21. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It furthermore notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.B. Merits1. Article 322. The applicant complained that he had not received adequate medical treatment for his heart disease.23. The Government disagreed.24. The applicable general principles in respect of medical treatment in detention have been summarised in Hummatov v. Azerbaijan (nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, §§ 112‑22, 29 November 2007); Ukhan v. Ukraine (no. 30628/02, §§ 77‑83, 18 December 2008); Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 43374/02, §§ 91‑98, 21 October 2010); and Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine (no. 40512/13, §§ 70‑75, 22 October 2015).25. Turning to the circumstances of the present case,

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 34
Outcome: violation