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.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.III.  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. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Melnik v. Ukraine (cited above), Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011), Ignatov v. Ukraine, (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016) and Vasiliy Ivashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 760/03, §§ 103-10, 26 July 2012).V.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS15.  In applications nos. 25725/09, 51967/09, 65987/09, 29273/10 and 38721/10 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.16.  The Court has examined the complaints in these applications 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 above-mentioned applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION17.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”18.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Logvinenko v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 89-95, 14 October 2010), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicants and makes no award in respect of the applicant in application no. 157/18 who did not request monetary compensation.19.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,1.  Decides to join the applications; 2.  Declares the complaints concerning the failure of the authorities to provide the applicants with adequate medical care in detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 25725/09, 51967/09, 65987/09, 29273/10 and 38721/10 inadmissible; 3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention; 4.  Holds that the complaints in applications nos. 54503/08 and 38721/10 disclose a breach of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective domestic remedy regarding complaints about the quality of the medical care in detention; 5.  Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention in applications nos. 65987/09, 29273/10 and 38721/10 as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 6.  Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the other applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. 7.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 March 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Síofra O’LearyActing Deputy Registrar President APPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention(inadequate medical treatment in detention)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameDate of birth Representative’s name and locationPrincipal medical conditionShortcomings in medical treatment DatesOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant(in euros)[1]   54503/0807/11/2008Viktor Viktorovych Korol04/11/1966Lyudmyla Oleksandrivna SharayaCherkasyTuberculosislacking/delayed drug therapy, Recurrence of disease (18/08/2009) 29/01/2008 to 18/07/20085 months and 20 daysArt. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law for the complaint of inadequate medical treatment in prison 7,500   25725/0930/03/2009Eduard Lvovich Soloveychik20/10/1981Olga Viktorovna BelyayevaDniproHIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, HepatitisDelay in provision of treatment of HIV, aggravation of HIV infection to stage III. Treatment not systematic and comprehensive resulted in recurrence of tuberculosis and transformation of hepatitis into a chronic form 21/08/2006 to 20/03/20092 years and 7 months 7,500   51967/0905/07/2009Andrey Vladimirovich Dubrova[2]15/08/1975Taras Oleksandrovych KalmykovKharkivHIV/AIDSlacking/delayed drug therapy, aggravation of HIV infection from stage III to stage IV 21/05/2012 to 01/10/20131 year, 4 months and 11 days 7,500   65987/0916/11/2009Oleksiy Ivanovych Kravchenko20/01/1956  peptic ulcerProvision of symptomatic treatment, no comprehensive approach in treatment, the Government’s failure to provide documentary evidence proving that the prescribed medication has been administered 18/01/2008 to 26/12/20135 years, 11 months and 9 daysArt. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition - domestic court’s refusal to provide the applicant with copies of the documents from his case file after the proceedings against him had been completed (Vasiliy Ivashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 760/03, §§ 103-10, 26 July 2012)7,500   29273/1028/05/2010Yevgeniy Anatolyevich Levchenko11/03/1974Oleg Igorovych VeremiyenkoKyivHIV/AIDS, Tuberculosislacking/delayed drug therapy for chronic tuberculosis which aggravated and transformed into a multi-drug resistant form; lacking/delayed drug therapy for stage III HIV 16/03/2010 to 26/11/20111 year, 8 months and 11 daysArt. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention: Mariupol SIZO,17/08/2009 to 22/01/20111 year, 5 months and 6 days overcrowding (2 m²),lack of or insufficient quantity of food9,750   38721/1002/07/2010Ruslan Petrovych Drygin27/12/1981Andriy Anatoliyovych KristenkoKharkivconsolidated ankle fracturelacking/delayed surgery, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist 01/01/2010 to 17/01/20111 year and 17 daysArt. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention: 29/01/2009 to 17/01/20111 year, 11 months, and 18 days Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law for the complaint of inadequate medical treatment in prison9,750   54570/1619/09/2016Ivan Sergiyovych Zhukov11/07/1984[3]Vasyl Ivanovych MelnychukKyivKidney diseasedelay in surgery 05/09/2013 to 27/09/20163 years and 23 days 7,500   157/1826/12/2017Stanislav Fedorovych Denysyuk14/01/1958Anton Mykolayovych BashlovkaKyivHeart condition, bronchial diseaseslack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of/delay in medical testing, lacking/delayed drug therapy 08/06/2017 to 22/05/201811 months and 15 days 0  [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2].  Rectified on 7 June 2019: the applicant’s last name was “Dubrov.” [3] Rectified on 22 July 2019: the applicant’s date of birth was 30/01/1984 in the previous version.