Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.) - 37546/06 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 1359 (19 November 2013)

Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.) - 37546/06 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 1359 (19 November 2013)

The Court found that the applicant received regular and specialised medical supervision, including CD4 cell count tests every two to six months, and that antiretroviral therapy was not indicated under the 2006 WHO Guidelines. There was no evidence of inadequate medical care or failure to monitor the applicant's condition. Therefore, there was no violation of Article 3 ECHR.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 1359
Parties
Applicant: Fedosejevs; Respondent: Latvia
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
19 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Determination of Admissibility Before the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)
Legal Topics
Article 3 ECHR, Degrading Treatment, Inhuman Treatment, Prisoner Medical Care, HIV Treatment Standards
Human Rights Law Prison Law Article 3 ECHR Degrading Treatment Inhuman Treatment Prisoner Medical Care HIV Treatment Standards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fedosejevs

Applicant

Latvia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Determination of Admissibility Before the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lack of antiretroviral therapy for a prisoner with HIV whose CD4 count had not reached the WHO threshold constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant received regular and specialised medical supervision, including CD4 cell count tests every two to six months, and that antiretroviral therapy was not indicated under the 2006 WHO Guidelines. There was no evidence of inadequate medical care or failure to monitor the applicant's condition. Therefore, there was no violation of Article 3 ECHR.

Court Disposition

inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)