FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DZHACHVLIANI AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 37516/23 and 2 others – see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 May 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dzhachvliani and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Diana Sârcu , President , Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 April 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. 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 FACTS 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 6. The applicants complained principally that they were not afforded adequate medical treatment in detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 7. The Court notes that the applicants suffered from serious medical conditions, as indicated in the appended table, which affected their everyday functioning. Therefore, they could have experienced considerable anxiety as to whether the medical care provided to them was adequate. 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, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine , no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, 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, with further references 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, for instance, Sadretdinov v. Russia , no. 17564/06, § 67, 24 May 2016, with further references 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, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006 and Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 68-78, 14 October 2010). 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11. In applications nos. 41072/23 and 10085/24, the applicants 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 the cases listed in the appendix table. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12. In applications nos. 37516/23 and 41072/23, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. 13. The Court has examined these complaints 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Logvinenko , cited above, §§ 89-95), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the failure of the authorities to provide the applicants with adequate medical care in detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 37516/23 and 41072/23 inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate medical care in detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate medical treatment in detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Principal medical condition Shortcomings in medical treatment Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 37516/23 17/10/2023 Lasha Valeryanovych DZHACHVLIANI 1973 Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych Kyiv thyroid cancer, heart condition lack of/delay in medical examination, lacking/delayed drug therapy, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, failure to keep a comprehensive record concerning the applicant’s state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention 27/12/2022 to 22/01/2024 1 year(s) and 27 day(s) 7,500 250 41072/23 25/10/2023 Oleksandr Antonovych VARAKUTA 1985 Matvyeyeva Larysa Stanislavivna Khashchuvate trophic ulcer of the right shin, physical injury lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lacking/delayed drug therapy, lack of/delay in medical examination 07/04/2020 to 14/05/2024 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 01/08/2022 - 12/07/2024, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 February 2016); Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 29/09/2021 - pending, 1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021); Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 9,750 250 10085/24 25/03/2024 Andriy Oleksiyovych KIRYEYEV 1987 Borysov Maksym Petrovych Kyiv hepatitis C, cirrhosis, chronic ischemic heart disease, knee problems lack of/delay in medical examination, lacking/delayed diet, lacking/delayed drug therapy 27/02/2023 to 03/06/2024 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 8 day(s) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 27/02/2023 - 03/06/2024, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81, 10 February 2011, Ignatov v. Ukraine, 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 December 2016) 9,750 250 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.