IVANOV A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 50942/08 and 5 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 July 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ivanov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eight Russian nationals listed in Appendix I (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed in the case no. 62510/12;

the decisions to give notice of the complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 34 of the Convention to the Russian Government (“the Government”) initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the parties’ observations;

the decision to reject the Government’s objection to examination of the applications nos. 29330/15 and 13123/16 by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 14 June 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The applications concern, among other things, complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about alleged ill-treatment of the applicants at the hands of State officials and the lack of a proper investigation in that regard. The details of the factual circumstances and domestic procedures relevant to each case are listed in Appendix I.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

2. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. Preliminary objections

3. In their additional observations and submissions on just satisfaction in the cases of Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no. 24592/10) and Mr I.Z. (no. 62510/12) the Government submitted for the first time that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

4. According to the Court’s case-law, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 52-54, 15 December 2016), what the Government failed to do in the cases at hand. Their objection is therefore dismissed.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION
   1. Admissibility

5. In the case of Mr I.Z. (no. 62510/12), the Government argued that the applicant was no longer a victim of the alleged violation since the authorities had convicted one of the perpetrators of his ill-treatment.

6. The question at hand is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint. The Court therefore decides to join this matter to the merits.

7. As regards the remaining complaints, the Court notes that they are neither manifestly ill‑founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits
   1. The applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment

8. The Court observes that all applicants were arrested by the police on suspicion of their having committed various crimes. After spending different periods of time at the hands of State officers, the applicants were found to have sustained injuries of various degrees, as recorded by forensic medical experts, detention facilities or medical institutions (see Appendix I).

9. The above factors are sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicants’ accounts of events and to satisfy the Court that their allegations of ill-treatment were credible.

2. Effectiveness of the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment

10. Firstly, the investigative authorities dismissed the credible allegations of ill-treatment by State officers in the cases of Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08), Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no. 24592/10), Mr Krysyuk (no.75186/11) and Mr Demerchyan (no. 29330/15) after summary pre-investigative inquiries. However, in the context of the Russian legal system in cases of credible allegations of treatment proscribed under Article 3 of the Convention, it is incumbent on the authorities to open a criminal case and conduct a fully-fledged criminal investigation (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 129 and 132‑36, 24 July 2014). The authorities’ refusal to initiate such an investigation is indicative of their failure to comply with its procedural obligation under the above provision. The Court has no reason to hold otherwise in the cases at hand.

11. By contrast, in the remaining two cases the authorities initiated the necessary criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, they were tainted with other shortcomings, which had a serious negative impact on the overall effectiveness of the procedures.

12. In the case of Mr I.Z. (no. 62510/12) the applicant complained of two different episodes of ill-treatment, namely, during his arrest and then at the detention centre. The Court is not convinced by the Government’s argument that Mr I.Z. lost his victim status as one of the perpetrators of his ill-treatment had been convicted. That officer was exempted from serving the sentence as his criminal liability had become time-barred (see Barovov v. Russia, no. 9183/09, §§ 42-44, 15 June 2021). Furthermore, the other officers who had participated in the applicant’s beating were never prosecuted. In any event, similarly to the above cases, no criminal proceedings were initiated on account of the applicant’s credible allegations of ill-treatment at the detention centre.

13. Lastly, in the case of Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no. 13123/16) the investigative authorities opened criminal cases into the applicants’ allegations in more than six months and one year respectively after the receipt of the applicants’ first complaints. Such delays could not but have had a significant adverse impact on the investigation (see Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, § 61, 5 February 2015) which was eventually discontinued. The investigators essentially relied on the statements of the implicated police officers who had denied the allegations and did not take necessary steps to address the medical evidence thus failing to elucidate the cause of the injuries (see Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, § 104, 3 May 2012).

14. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

3. The Government’s explanations

15. The Government maintained the conclusions of the investigating authorities. In particular, they argued that the applicants’ injuries had not been attributable to the conduct of the police officers or that the application of force had been lawful.

16. Given that the Government’s explanations were provided as a result of superficial domestic inquiries falling short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court finds that they cannot be considered satisfactory or convincing. It holds that in these cases the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the account of events provided by the applicants, which it therefore finds established (see Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825/09 and 2 others, §§ 83-85, 2 May 2017, and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 102‑04, 12 December 2017).

4. Legal classification of the treatment

17. The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.

18. Having regard to the applicants’ injuries confirmed by medical evidence, the Court concludes that the ill-treatment of Mr I.Z. (no. 62510/12), Mr Demerchyan (29330/15) and Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov (the first applicant in the case no. 13123/16) amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The remaining applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.

5. Conclusion

19. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its both substantive and procedural limbs in respect of all of the applicants. In the light of this finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

4. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

20. Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08), Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no.24592/10), Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186/11), Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no.13123/16) submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see Appendix II). Those 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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its well‑established case-law (see Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, §§ 157-60, 12 February 2013; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 78-79, 26 June 2018; and Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, §§ 69‑71, 26 November 2019).

5. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

21. Lastly, the Court has examined the remaining complaint under Article 6 of the Convention submitted by Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin (the first applicant in the case no. 24592/10) regarding the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court observes that on 6 June 2019 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia quashed the applicant’s conviction and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first-instance court. Those proceedings are still pending. Accordingly, this part of Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin’s application is premature and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

22. Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no. 24592/10), made no claims regarding just satisfaction. The remaining applicants claimed various amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08), Mr Demerchyan (no. 29330/15), Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no. 13123/16), also claimed costs and expenses.

23. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts to the applicants.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin’s (the first applicant in the case no. 24592/10) complaint under Article 6 of the Convention inadmissible and the remainder of the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of all of the applicants;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no. 13123/16);
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08) and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (the second applicant in the case no. 24592/10);
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186/11);
7. Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in the case of Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186/11);
8. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;
9. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. The amounts are to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The amounts in respect of costs and expenses should be paid directly into the representatives’ bank account;

(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;

10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II

Other complaints under the well-established case-law and just satisfaction