FIFTH SECTION    CASE OF KOROL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 54503/08 and 7 others -see appended list)        JUDGMENT  This version was rectified on 7 June and 22 July 2019under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court  STRASBOURG  7 March 2019  This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision In the case of Korol and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Síofra O’Leary, President, Mārtiņš Mits, Lado Chanturia, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 14 February 2019,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine 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 Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The applicants complained that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:Article 3“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”7. The Court notes that the applicants suffered from serious medical conditions, as indicated in the appended table, which affected their everyday functioning.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 Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, and Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references) 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, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references). The Court stresses that medical treatment within prison facilities must be appropriate and comparable to the quality of treatment which the State authorities have committed themselves to providing for the entirety of the population. Nevertheless, this does not mean that each detainee must be guaranteed the same level of medical treatment that is available in the best health establishments outside prison facilities (see Sadretdinov v. Russia, no. 17564/06, § 67, 24 May 2016, and Konovalchuk v. Ukraine, no. 31928/15, § 52, 13 October 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 in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-05, ECHR 2005‑II (extracts); Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006; Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 68-78, 14 October 2010; Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 40512/13, §§ 76-90, 22 October 2015; and Pivovarnik v. Ukraine, no. 29070/15, §§ 37-46, 6 October 2016). 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.10. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION11. The applicants in applications nos. 54503/08 and 38721/10 also complained that no effective domestic remedies regarding complaints about the quality of the medical care in detention were available to them. Their complaints fall to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:Article 13“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”12. The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Melnik v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 113-16; Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, §§ 93-98, 19 October 2006; and Savinov v. Ukraine, no. 5212/13, § 58, 22 October 2015). In the aforementioned cases the Court established that none of the legal avenues suggested by the Government constituted an effective remedy to prevent the alleged violations or stop them from continuing, or to provide the applicants with adequate and sufficient redress for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.13. The Court sees no reason which would justify departure from its well-established case-law on the issue. It finds that the applicants in applications nos. 54503/08 and 38721/10 did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW14. The applicants in applications nos. 65987/09, 29273/10 and 38721/10 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.

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