KUTSENKO proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KUTSENKO v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 32118/21)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 March 2026

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

In the case of Kutsenko v. Russia,

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

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,

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

• PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 June 2021.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr P. Muzny, a lawyer practising in Geneva.

3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

• THE FACTS

4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicant complained of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected by the police. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

• THE LAW
  1. Jurisdiction

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention

7. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police and that there had been no effective investigation into the events in question.

8. The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015) that presumptions of fact arise in favour of applicants claiming to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, if they demonstrate that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted when they were under the control of the police or a similar authority. Moreover, in the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct diminishes human dignity and in principle constitutes a violation of the right enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006). The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force by State agents, which resulted in the applicants’ injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 62003/08 and 5 others, § 84, 5 July 2022).

9. Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128‑40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities’ refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the State agents were indicative of the State’s failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. The Court therefore finds this complaint admissible and decides that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention for the reasons specifically laid down in the table below.

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11. The applicant submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that this complaint also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 256-73, 7 June 2022, in connection with prosecution on charges of extremism for peacefully practising the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in community with others.

4. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13. The Court has examined the application 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 and must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention, or do not require separate examination in view of the Court’s findings in paragraph 11 above.

5. 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, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2. Declares the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant by the police and lack of an effective investigation into it, and also another complaint under the well-established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the appended table, admissible, and decides that the remaining complaints are inadmissible or that it is not necessary to examine them separately;
3. Holds that there has been a breach of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the ill-treatment of the applicant by the police and lack of an effective investigation in that regard;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards another complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
   1. that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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;
   2. 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.
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.