Last Updated on April 21, 2020 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF AVDYUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 33373/07 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 March 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Avdyukov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in nine 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”) on various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
3. Notice of the applications was given to the Government. The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants are all Russian nationals. Between 2005 and 2015 they were arrested on suspicion of having committed crimes in different regions of Russia. They alleged, among other things, that they had been ill-treated by the police.
5. The relevant facts in respect of each application are set out below.
A. Avdyukov v. Russia, no. 33373/07
1. Alleged ill-treatment
(a) The events of 29-30 November 2005
6. On 29 November 2005 at around 6.30 p.m. officers of the Ordzhonikidzevskiy Department of the Interior in Yekaterinburg arrested the applicant on suspicion of a robbery and took him to the police station. According to the applicant, the officers beat him on the body and suffocated with a gas mask.
7. According to the applicant, the beatings continued until morning 30 November 2005. Not being able to withstand the ill-treatment, he attempted to commit suicide by throwing himself out of a window. He was stopped by the officers.
8. On 30 November 2005 at 6.10 p.m. the officers compiled an arrest record. The applicant was examined by a hospital doctor who recorded one bruise on his head and several cuts on his forearms.
(b) The events of 18 May 2006
9. On 18 May 2006 at around 4.30 p.m. officers of the Kirovskiy Department of the Interior in Yekaterinburg arrested the applicant on suspicion of a crime and took him to the police station. According to the applicant, the officers beat him, subjected to electric shocks, suffocated with a gas mask, and burned his palms with a cigarette. The applicant attempted to jump out of a window. According to him, he did so in order to evade further ill-treatment. He was stopped by the officers.
10. According to forensic medical report no. 5809 of 7 July 2008, on 19 May 2006 the applicant was examined in a hospital. He had hematomas on his face and a swelling of the eyelids of his left eye. He had no injuries resulted from electric shock. The expert concluded that the applicant’s injuries had “a speedy recovery effect with a period of six days” and that “the absence of a detailed description of the injuries […] [did] not allow to determine […] the exact date of the infliction of injuries”.
2. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
(a) Inquiry into the events of 29-30 November 2005
11. On 1 December 2005 the applicant complained to a prosecutor about the ill-treatment.
12. On 12 December 2005 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case for the absence of evidence of crime. On 7 March 2007 the decision was quashed.
13. On 8 June 2007 the prosecutor found that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded. The prosecutor concluded that since the officers had not applied physical force to the applicant, by committing a suicide attempt the applicant intended to evade criminal responsibility.
14. On 18 October 2007 the Rezhevskiy District Court dismissed the appeal against the refusal as unfounded. On 7 December 2007 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court upheld the court decision finding that the applicant’s injuries to his head and forearms had been caused when he had thrown himself out of the window breaking the glass with his body.
(b) Inquiry into the events of 18 May 2006
15. On 26 May 2006 the applicant complained to a prosecutor about the ill-treatment.
16. On 29 May 2006 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case for the absence of evidence of crime.
17. On 17 July 2008 the investigator issued a decision not to open a criminal case, referring to the explanations of police officers that during the arrest the applicant had tried to escape. The investigator further concluded that the applicant had attempted to jump out of the window of the second floor of the building in order to escape. Referring to the forensic expert report, the investigator concluded that the applicant’s injuries resulted from his resistance.
18. On 7 November 2008 the Kirovskiy District Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal against the refusal since his criminal case had been pending before the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court. On 19 December 2008 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court upheld the court decision.
3. Correspondence with the Court
19. On 2 July 2006 the applicant lodged his application with the Court alleging violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.
20. On 4 February 2008 the applicant supplemented his application form complaining under Article 5 of the Convention about his unrecorded detention on 29 November 2005.
4. Proceedings related to the applicant’s detention on 29 November 2005
21. On 8 June 2006 the prosecutor found that the applicant had been unlawfully detained at the police station for thirteen hours. Further development of the proceedings is unclear.
22. On 29 June 2009 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and indicated his sentence to be counted from 29 November 2005, the date of the applicant’s actual arrest. It issued a separate decision addressed to the Head of the Sverdlovsk Region Department of the Interior about the breach of the Code of Criminal Procedure provisions regarding the arrest records.
B. Zakalyayev v. Russia, no. 24534/10
23. On 1 August 2008 officers of the Bagayevskiy Department of the Interior in the Rostov Region arrested the applicant on suspicion of a murder.
1. The events of 3 August 2008
24. On 3 August 2008 the applicant was questioned as a suspect. According to him, during the questioning the officers punched him in the ribs, beat him on his head with a plastic bottle filled with water.
25. On 20 August 2008 the applicant underwent a forensic examination. According to report no. 267, on 5 August 2008 he was diagnosed with a fracture of his seventh rib.
2. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
26. On 14 June 2009 during the trial the applicant complained to a judge about the ill-treatment.
27. On 2 July 2009 the investigator refused to open a criminal case for the lack of evidence of crime.
28. On 27 July 2009 the trial court ordered an additional inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.
29. On 8 October 2009 the refusal of 2 July 2009 was quashed.
30. On 12 October 2009 the investigator issued another refusal, mainly referring to the explanations of the police officers who had denied the use of force against the applicant. He concluded that the applicant had sustained injuries before the arrest in a fight with another person.
31. On 15 October 2009 the Bagayevskiy District Court convicted the applicant dismissing his allegations of ill-treatment with reference to the latest refusal. On 9 December 2009 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the conviction.
32. On 27 February 2010 the Bagayevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 12 October 2009 as unfounded. On 14 April 2010 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the court decision.
C. Garmashov v. Russia, no. 25400/10
1. The events of 19 December 2007
33. On 19 December 2007 police officers of the Novorossiysk Department of the Interior arrested the applicant in Ms A.’s flat on suspicion of a murder and took him to the police station. According to the applicant, the officers beat him at the station with a view to extracting a confession.
34. On 22 December 2007 the applicant asked for an ambulance. He was diagnosed with a craniocerebral injury, brain concussion and a contused injury to his cheekbone. He told a doctor that he had been beaten but did not specify the details. On 24 December 2007 a forensic expert examined the applicant. According to report no. 2786, the applicant had bruises on his face, body and hands, caused by blunt hard objects between six and eight days before the examination. The applicant explained to the expert that he had had a fight before the arrest. According to the applicant, before the examination police officer P. told him not to tell the expert about the ill‑treatment.
2. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
35. On 13 May 2008 the applicant complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment.
36. Between May and December 2008 the investigators issued at least five decisions not to open a criminal case. The investigators referred to the applicant’s explanations given during his forensic examination that his injuries had been caused before the arrest. All decisions were quashed as incomplete.
37. On 3 March 2009 the Oktyabrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the latest refusal of 9 December 2008 as unfounded. On 29 April 2009 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the court decision.
38. On 21 July 2009 the Krasnodar Regional Court convicted the applicant. It cited witness statements of Ms A. and Ms K. that before the arrest the applicant had not had injuries, but found them unreliable. The court examined the applicant’s medical documents and found his allegations of ill-treatment unfounded. On 14 January 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed, among other things, the applicant’s arguments about ill‑treatment and upheld the conviction.
D. Kolykhalov v. Russia, no. 20949/11
1. The events of 9 October 2007
39. On the evening of 9 October 2007 officers of the Department for Combatting Organised Crimes of the Kemerovo Region (УБОП ГУВД по Кемеровской области) arrested the applicant on the street on suspicion of a crime and took him to the police station. He was 17 years old at the time of the events. According to the applicant, the officers beat him at the station with a wooden stick and threatened him with rape. The ill-treatment continued until morning. He was then released.
40. On 11 October 2007 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to the report (without a number), the applicant had bruises on his face, head, right ear, chest, upper and lower limbs, buttocks, and contusion of both kidneys resulted from the impact of a hard blunt object.
2. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
41. On 24 October 2007 the applicant complained to the authorities about the ill-treatment.
42. On 27 October 2007 an investigator decided not to open a criminal case, referring to the explanations of police officers that no physical force had been applied to the applicant. The decision was later quashed as incomplete.
43. Between December 2007 and August 2010 the investigators issued eight refusals, at least four of which were quashed as incomplete. According to them, the physical force was used against the applicant since he had resisted the arrest.
44. On 20 April 2011 the Rudnichniy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the latest refusal of 12 August 2010 as unfounded. On 9 June 2011 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the court decision.
3. Proceedings related to the applicant’s detention on remand
45. On 13 January 2008 the applicant was arrested and placed in detention on remand. The measure was extended until the date of his acquittal on 28 May 2013.
4. Civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance
46. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a civil complaint against the Russian Ministry of Finance for unlawful prosecution and inadequate conditions of detention in a remand prison.
47. On 2 December 2015 the Zavodskoy District Court allowed the applicant’s complaint that he had been unlawfully prosecuted for a crime of which he had been acquitted. It also found that the applicant had been detained for five years in the remand prison in inadequate conditions.
48. The court awarded the applicant 2,000,000 Russian roubles (about 27,777 euros) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage for unlawful prosecution and inadequate conditions of detention.
49. On 17 March 2016 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the court decision on appeal.
E. Fomin v. Russia, no. 68556/12
1. The events of 17 December 2010
50. On 17 December 2010 at around 3 a.m. officers of the Department of the Interior of the South-West Administrative Circuit in Moscow (УВД по ЮЗАО г. Москва) searched the applicant’s flat. According to the applicant, during the search the officers handcuffed him and beat him, forcing to confess. The beatings continued in a car on the way to the department. On the same day the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention facility in Moscow, where, according to him, he was also beaten.
51. On 26 December 2010 the applicant was transferred from the temporary detention facility to a remand prison. According to a medical certificate issued by the remand prison, the applicant had bruises in the scapula area. On 27 December 2010 he was diagnosed with a dislocation of his right shoulder.
2. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
52. On 6 April 2011 the applicant complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment.
53. On 15 June 2011 he underwent a forensic medical examination. According to forensic report no. 9223-м9188, the applicant’s bruises in the scapular area resulted from an impact of a hard blunt object. The medical records had insufficient information about the morphological characteristics of the injuries to determine the time of their infliction.
54. On the same day the investigator issued a decision not to open a criminal case. He referred to the explanations of the police officers, according to which the applicant had actively resisted the arrest and they had applied physical force. The investigator concluded that the applicant’s injuries resulted from his resistance.
55. On 15 July 2011 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court quashed the investigator’s decision as incomplete.
56. On 22 August 2011 the investigator issued another decision not to open a criminal case for the same reasons.
57. On 9 February 2012 the Zuzinskiy District Court convicted the applicant. It dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment as unfounded. On 18 April 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction.
F. Yepifanov v. Russia, no. 71467/13
1. The events of 15 March 2012
58. On 15 March 2012 at around 2 p.m. officers of the Federal Drug Control Service of the Republic of Mari El (УФСКН поРеспубликеМарий Эл) arrested the applicant on suspicion of a crime near his house. According to the applicant, he did not resist arrest. The officers kicked and punched him on the body. They took him to the police station where they punched him on the body at least fifteen times.
59. On 16 March 2012 the applicant was examined in a hospital. According to the hospital’s medical certificate, he had a hematoma on his right eye and contusion of his chest.
60. On 27 March and 8 June 2012 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 709 and additional report no. 1241, the hematoma was inflicted by a hard blunt object. The medical records had insufficient information about the morphological characteristics of the injuries to determine the time and mechanism of their infliction.
2. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
61. On 15 April 2012 the applicant complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment.
62. On 25 April 2012 the investigator opened a criminal case into abuse of power under Article 286 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
63. On 30 December 2012 the investigator terminated the investigation. The decision contained witness statements of the applicant’s parents who had seen him in the evening of 15 March 2012 at the premises of the Drug Control Service. They submitted that the applicant had had swollen lips and nose, and a hematoma on the right eye. One of the applicant’s front teeth was absent. The investigator also referred, among other things, to the report of the officers drawn up on 15 March 2012 that the applicant had actively resisted the arrest and they had applied physical force to overcome it. The investigator concluded that the applicant had not been ill-treated by the officers and that by alleging the ill-treatment he intended to evade criminal responsibility.
64. On 23 May 2013 the Yoshkar-Ola City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 30 December 2012 as unfounded. On 31 July 2013 the Mari El Supreme Court upheld the court decision.
G. Tyuriny v. Russia, no. 72354/14
65. The applicants are brothers, Mr Y.Y. Tyurin and Mr R.Y. Tyurin.
1. The events of 28 January 2013
66. On 28 January 2013 at around 6.30 p.m. officers of the special rapid response unit (специальныйотрядбыстрогореагирования – СОБР) in Astrakhan arrested the applicants on suspicion of a crime and took them to Police Department no. 3. According to the applicants, the officers beat them with a view to extracting a confession. On 29 January 2013 at around 10 p.m. they were taken to a temporary detention facility.
2. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
67. On 30 January 2013 the applicants complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment.
68. On 30 January 2013 the applicants were examined by a trauma surgeon. According to their medical cards nos. 4333/1050 and 4332/1049, they both had a closed craniocerebral injury and brain concussion.
69. On 7 February 2013 they were examined by a forensic expert. According to forensic medical report no. 469, R.Y. Tyurin had bruises and abrasions on his head and upper limbs inflicted by a hard blunt object. According to forensic medical report no. 470, Y.Y. Tyurin had a closed fracture of the lower jaw, bruises on his head, neck, pelvic area caused by a hard blunt object.
70. On 8 November 2013 the investigator issued a decision refusing to open a criminal case. He referred to the explanations of police officers that the applicants had resisted the arrest and concluded that the use of force had been lawful.
71. On 17 January 2014 the Trusovskiy District Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the refusal as unfounded. On 15 May 2014 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the court decision.
H. Shcherbakov v. Russia, no. 34503/17
1. The events of 8 February 2015
72. On 8 February 2015 officers of the Department of the Interior in the Primorskiy Region arrested the applicant on suspicion of a crime. The officers took him to the police station, where, according to the applicant, he was ill-treated.
73. On 10 February 2015 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 383, he had abrasions on his face, left ear, right knee-joint inflicted within one day before the examination. He also had abrasions on his chest and bruises on his right shoulder inflicted within four days before the examination. The injuries were inflicted by a hard blunt object.
2. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
74. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment.
75. On 15 August 2015 the investigator issued a refusal to open a criminal case. The case file does not contain a copy of the decision.
76. On 31 March 2016 the investigator issued another decision not to open a criminal case. He found that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted before the arrest in a fight with another person.
77. On 27 May 2016 the Nakhodkinskiy District Court convicted the applicant. Referring to the applicant’s forensic medical examination and decision of 31 March 2016, the court dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. On 1 November 2016 the Primorskiy District Court upheld the conviction.
I. Prisyazhnyy v. Russia, no. 10918/18
78. On 13 January 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a crime.
1. The events of 14 January 2014
79. On 14 January 2014 officers of the Dalnorechensk Department of the Interior of the Primorskiy Region arrested the applicant and took him to the police department. According to the applicant, the officers beat him, suffocated him with a plastic bag, and twisted his arms forcing to confess.
80. On an unspecified date he was placed in a remand prison.
2. The events of 26 February 2014
81. On 26 February 2014 the applicant was taken from the remand prison to the police station for a questioning. According to the applicant, the convoy officers beat him.
82. On 27 February 2014 the applicant was examined in hospital no. 2 in Vladivostok. According to a medical certificate issued by the hospital on 12 March 2014, on the date of the examination he had brain concussion, a fracture of the nose bone, contusion of his chest and upper limbs.
3. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
83. On 12 February 2014 the applicant complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment of 14 January 2014. On an unspecified date he supplemented his complaint about the ill-treatment of 26 February 2014.
84. Between March and April 2016 the investigators issued three decisions refusing to open a criminal case, mainly referring to the explanations of the police officers that no physical force had been applied to the applicant on 14 January 2014. Referring to the explanations of the convoy officers, the investigator concluded that on 26 February 2014 the applicant had attempted to escape and inflict himself injuries by hitting the wall with his head. He disobeyed lawful orders of the officers and the force used against him was proportional.
85. On 19 May 2017 the investigator issued another refusal to open a criminal case. The case file does not contain a copy of the decision. On 24 July 2017 the Pervorechenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal.
86. On 6 August 2017 the investigator issued the latest known refusal to open a criminal case. The case file does not contain a copy of the decision. On 31 August 2017 the prosecutor quashed the refusal.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
87. For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014, and Ryabtsev v. Russia, no. 13642/06, §§ 48‑52, 14 November 2013.
88. Paragraph 16 of the Instruction on the police officers’ execution of their obligations and rights in the police departments of the Ministry of the Interior after the persons are taken to police custody (adopted by order no. 389 of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation on 30 April 2012) provides that a police officer on duty in the police custody shall inform his superior about all cases when a person arrested and taken to the police custody has visible wounds, injuries or is in a state that requires urgent medical intervention.
Similar rules have been in force in respect of the police since 2009.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
89. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
90. The Court notes that the Government made preliminary objections in four cases, Zakalyayev v. Russia (no. 24534/10), Garmashov v. Russia (no. 25400/10), Shcherbakov v. Russia (no. 34503/17), Prisyazhnyy v. Russia (no. 10918/18).
A. Zakalyayev v. Russia, no 24534/10
91. The Government submitted that the applicant had complained about the alleged ill-treatment for the first time in June 2009, that is more than ten months after the events. They argued that the applicant had not properly exhausted domestic remedies, as he had raised the issue before the trial court which was not competent to examine his allegations of ill-treatment. The applicant should have raised his complaint in separate court proceedings.
92. The Court reiterates that, in principle, a judicial appeal against a decision not to institute criminal proceedings may offer a substantial safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power by the investigating authority, given a court’s power to annul such decisions and indicate the defects to be addressed (see Trubnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 49790/99, 14 October 2003). In the ordinary course of events an appeal to a court might be regarded as a possible remedy where the prosecution has decided not to investigate the claims.
93. In the present case, the applicant indeed raised the complaint about ill-treatment during the trial more than ten months after the events in question. About two weeks after his complaint, the investigator refused to open a criminal case. The decision was subsequently quashed. The trial court ordered an additional inquiry into his complaint which resulted in another refusal of 12 October 2009 to open a criminal case. Three days after the decision had been issued, the applicant was convicted. The trial court specifically rejected the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment as unfounded, referring to the refusal to open a criminal case. The judgment was later upheld on appeal.
94. Having regard to the fact that the second examination of the applicant’s complaint about the alleged ill-treatment had been ordered, examined and accepted by the trial court and later reviewed by the appeal court within the criminal case against the applicant, the Court finds that the applicant made the domestic courts sufficiently aware of his grievances in respect of the alleged ill-treatment (see Dmitrachkov v. Russia, no. 18825/02, § 39, 16 September 2010). Moreover, following the trial the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the refusal of 12 October 2009 in separate court proceedings.
95. The Court considers that in the absence of the applicant’s explanation of his inactivity for ten months before he had complained about the alleged ill-treatment for the first time, the investigators, and subsequently the courts, examined his complaint in substance. The investigators issued two decisions, one of which was reviewed by the trial court. It cannot therefore be said that the domestic authorities considered any investigative efforts to be manifestly futile in view of the significant time that had elapsed (see Velikanov v. Russia, no. 4124/08, § 44, 30 January 2014). The Court finds that the ensuing investigation must be taken into account for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and rejects the Government’s objections.
B. Garmashov v. Russia, no. 25400/10
96. The Government questioned the date of 31 March 2010 as the date of introduction of the application form.
97. The Court notes that on 31 March 2010 the applicant dispatched his first letter to the Court, setting out the pertinent facts and alleging a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. He lodged a completed application form without undue delay on 29 July 2010. The Court, therefore, accepts the date of the applicant’s first letter as the date of the introduction of the application and rejects the Government’s objection.
C. Shcherbakov v. Russia, no. 34503/17
98. The Government contended that a final decision in respect of the applicant’s complaint about the alleged ill-treatment was the decision refusing to open a criminal case of 15 August 2015. Given that the applicant had lodged his complaint on 29 April 2017, that is more than six months after the final decision, the applicant’s complaint was out of time. They also argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies since he had not challenged the refusal in separate court proceedings.
99. The Court observes that on 15 August 2015 the investigating authorities issued the first refusal to open a criminal case into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. During the applicant’s trial, on 31 March 2016 the authorities issued another refusal to open a criminal case for the lack of evidence of crime. In less than two months, the trial court, referring to the decision of 31 March 2016, rejected the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment in its judgment, which was upheld on appeal on 1 November 2016. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the refusal of 15 August 2015 cannot be considered as a final decision in the applicant’s case.
100. As to the Government’s submission that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court does not consider that this remedy would have been effective in the present case. As in the case of Mr Zakalyayev, the Court finds that Mr Shcherbakov made the domestic courts sufficiently aware of his grievances in respect of the alleged ill‑treatment (see Dmitrachkov, cited above, § 39). The Court therefore rejects the Government’s objections.
D. Prisyazhnyy v. Russia, no. 10918/18
101. The Government argued that the decision of 24 July 2017 of the Pervorechenskiy District Court should be considered as a final decision in respect of the applicant’s complaint about the alleged ill-treatment. Since the applicant lodged his complaint with the Court on 15 February 2018, he had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit.
102. The Court observes that before the above-mentioned decision, the investigating authorities issued at least four decisions refusing to open a criminal case. On 24 July 2017 the Pervorechenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal, the latest at that time. Following the court decision, the investigator issued another refusal which was quashed in less than a month, on 31 August 2017.
103. The Court finds that the court decision of 24 July 2017 therefore cannot be considered as final within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in the chain of the applicant’s attempts to initiate criminal investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment.
104. The Court concludes that the applicant complied with the six‑month time-limit and rejects the Government’s objection.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
105. The applicants complained that they had been subjected to ill‑treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. Mr Zakalyayev, Mr Yepifanov, Mr Y.Y. Tyurin and Mr R.Y. Tyurin also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy in respect of their complaints of ill-treatment. The relevant parts of the Convention provisions read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment …”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority …”
106. The Government contested their allegations, maintaining the conclusions of the domestic inquiries which were thorough and comprehensive.
107. In the case of Mr Avdyukov, the Government also argued that, according to the forensic expert, the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted within six days before his examination on 19 May 2006, that is before the arrest.
108. In the cases of Mr Avdyukov, Mr Kolykhalov, Mr Fomin, Mr Yepifanov, Mr Y.Y. Tyurin and Mr R.Y. Tyurin, the Government submitted that the applicants had offered resistance during their arrest and that the officers had proportionally applied physical force to overcome their resistance. In respect of Mr Prisyazhnyy, they stated that the applicant had disobeyed lawful orders of the officers and the force had been lawfully used against him.
A. Admissibility
1. Mr Avdyukov’s alleged ill-treatment on 29 and 30 November 2005
109. The Court notes that Mr Avdyukov’s version of the alleged ill‑treatment on 29 and 30 November 2005 is inconsistent with the facts of the case. According to him, the officers beat him from the evening 29 November 2005 until the morning of 30 November 2005 which forced him to attempt a suicide. Lacking detailed description of the beatings, the applicant’s allegations are not supported by the evidence in the case. The medical certificate issued by the hospital on the day of the alleged suicide attempt indicated a bruise on his head and cuts on his forearms (see paragraph 8 above). No other injuries supporting his allegations of the longstanding beatings were found. The Court considers that the location of the applicant’s injuries correspond to the conclusions of the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court that they had resulted from his suicide attempt (see paragraph 14 above), when he jumped out of the window breaking the glass. The Court considers that the applicant’s complaint about the events of 29 and 30 November 2005 is therefore manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
2. Mr Prisyazhnyy’s alleged ill-treatment on 14 January 2014
110. The Court observes that Mr Prisyazhnyy’s alleged ill-treatment on 14 January 2014 is not supported by any medical evidence (see paragraph 79 above) enabling the Court to find prima facie that he was subjected to the alleged ill-treatment by the police officers. His complaint concerning the events of 14 January 2014 is therefore manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
3. Other allegations of ill-treatment
111. The Court notes that the remaining complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Credibility of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in police custody and the presumption of fact
112. The Court observes that all applicants were arrested by the police on suspicion of them having committed various crimes. After spending different periods of time in police custody, the applicants were found to have sustained injuries of various degrees, as recorded by forensic medical experts (see paragraphs 10, 25, 34, 40, 53, 60, 69 and 73 above), the detention facilities or medical institutions (see paragraphs 34, 51, 59 and 82 above).
113. Having examined the case files and the parties’ submissions, the Court considers that the applicants’ injuries were well-documented and could arguably have resulted from the violence allegedly suffered by them at the hands of the police officers. 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 the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in police custody were credible.
2. Whether an effective investigation was carried out into the applicants’ allegations of police ill-treatment
114. The Court observes that the applicants’ credible allegations of their injuries being the result of police violence were dismissed by the investigating authorities as unfounded based mainly on the statements of police officers denying the applicants’ ill-treatment (see paragraphs 17, 30, 42, 54, 63, 70 and 84 above).
115. The investigators’ decisions refusing to open a criminal case (at least two decisions in Mr Avdyukov’s, Mr Zakalyayev’s, Mr Fomin’s and Mr Shcherbakov’s cases, at least five decisions in Mr Garmashov’s case and nine decisions in Mr Kolykhalov’s case) were each time quashed by the superior authorities for having been based on an incomplete inquiry and a fresh inquiry was ordered. The investigators’ most recent refusals to initiate criminal proceedings were upheld by the domestic courts. In the case of Mr Yepifanov, a criminal case was opened but subsequently terminated for the lack of evidence of crime. The decision in the case of the latter lacks any assessment of the applicant’s parents’ statements about his injuries that he had following the arrest (see paragraph 63 above).
116. As regards the quality of the forensic expert examinations, the Court reiterates that proper medical examinations are essential safeguards against ill-treatment (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, §§ 55 and 118, ECHR 2000‑X). In some cases the forensic examinations were conducted with a significant delay after the events or after the applicants had complained about the ill-treatment (five days after the alleged ill-treatment in Mr Garmashov’s case, nine days in the case of Mr Y.Y. Tyurin and Mr R.Y. Tyurin, two weeks in Mr Yepifanov’s case, more than a month in Mr Avdyukov’s case, about a month in Mr Zakalyayev’s case, and six months in Mr Fomin’s case). By the time the applicants were examined, precious time had been lost and it was impossible to determine the cause or origin of their injuries (Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 61, 11 December 2012). Besides that, in the cases of Mr Avdyukov, Mr Fomin and Mr Yepifanov the experts were provided with insufficient information to give a proper assessment of the injuries (see paragraphs 10, 53 and 60 above). No forensic medical examination at all was carried out in respect of Mr Prisyazhnyy.
117. In this connection, the Court considers that significant delays such as in these cases, as well as lack of information provided to forensic experts made it impracticable for the experts to provide adequate answers to the questions raised by the requesting authority (see Mogilat v. Russia, no. 8461/03, § 64, 13 March 2012).
118. The Court reiterates its finding that the mere carrying out of a pre‑investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article 3 of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill‑treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to institute criminal proceedings and conduct a proper criminal investigation in which a full range of investigative measures are carried out (Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 129 and 132‑36, 24 July 2014).
119. The Court has no reason to hold otherwise in the present cases, which involve credible allegations of treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. It finds that the State has failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of police violence.
3. Whether the Government provided explanations capable of casting doubt on the applicants’ versions of events
120. The Government maintained the conclusions of the investigating authorities to the effect that the applicants’ injuries had not been attributable to the conduct of the police officers and had been either the result of the lawful use of force by the police in arresting the applicants (Mr Avdyukov, Mr Kolykhalov, Mr Fomin, Mr Yepifanov, Mr Y.Y. Tyurin, Mr R.Y. Tyurin) or sustained in other circumstances (Mr Zakalyayev, Mr Garmashov, Mr Shcherbakov).
121. In the cases of Mr Avdyukov, Mr Kolykhalov, Mr Fomin, Mr Yepifanov, Mr Y.Y. Tyurin and Mr R.Y. Tyurin, at the outset the Court notes that it was not provided with any evidence supporting the investigating authorities’ conclusions, apart from the explanations of the police officers against whom the applicants had complained. In the cases of Mr Yepifanov, Mr Y.Y. Tyurin and Mr R.Y. Tyurin the officers were particularly obliged to report to their superiors about the use of force during the applicants’ arrests in view of their visible injuries (see paragraph 88 above).
122. In the case of Mr Avdyukov, the Government relied on the applicant’s forensic examination and considered that it had been established that his injuries had been inflicted within six days before his examination, that is before the arrest. The Court disagrees with the Government, as the forensic expert explicitly stated in his report that due to the lack of information, it was impossible to determine the timing when the injuries had been inflicted (see paragraph 10 above). The six-day period, to which the Government referred, in the Court’s view, related to the applicant’s injuries’ recovery period and not the period of their infliction (see paragraph 10 above).
123. The Court reiterates that the medical check done immediately after the applicants’ arrests could have confirmed that their injuries had been inflicted at the moment of their arrests (see Korobov v. Ukraine, no. 39598/03, § 70, 21 July 2011).
124. In the cases of Mr Zakalyayev, Mr Garmashov and Mr Shcherbakov, the investigators found that the police officers had not ill‑treated the applicants and that they had sustained injuries before the arrest. In the case of Mr Garmashov, the investigators referred to his explanations given to the forensic expert that he had sustained injuries before the arrest. The Court notes that for an unclear reason the Krasnodar Regional Court dismissed the witness statements of Ms A. and Ms K. that the applicant had not had any injuries before the arrest (see paragraph 38 above). No assessment was given to the reasons why the applicant had changed his explanations throughout the proceedings. The authorities focused solely on the version based on the applicant’s explanations.
125. As to Mr Shcherbakovand Mr Zakalyayev, the Court considers that given the applicants’ respective injuries on the face and the rib fracture, the police officers were obliged to report about them which they had failed to do.
126. Regarding Mr Prisyazhnyy, the investigator found, again mainly referring to the explanations of the officers, that the applicant had disobeyed their orders and that the force had been applied to him lawfully (see paragraph 84 above). The investigators did not establish any specific acts undertaken by the officers when using force or any actions on the part of the applicant which could have justified the use of force – that is to say they did not assess whether such force was indispensable and not excessive (see Ryabov v. Russia, no. 2674/07, § 47, 17 July 2018).
127. Given that the Government’s explanations were provided as a result of the 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 the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the applicants’ account of events, 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
128. The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.
129. The Court observes that Mr Avdyukov alleged that he had been subjected to electric shocks on 18 May 2006. The applicant was examined by a doctor on the following day after the alleged ill-treatment. As it follows from the medical documents, apart from the applicant’s hematomas on the face, he had no other injuries. In such circumstances, the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment by electric shock.
130. Having regard to the applicants’ injuries confirmed by the medical evidence, the Court finds that the police subjected Mr Avdyukov, Mr Zakalyayev, Mr Garmashov, Mr Fomin, Mr Yepifanov, Mr R.Y. Tyurin, Mr Shcherbakov and Mr Prisyazhnyy to inhuman and degrading treatment.
131. As to Mr Kolykhalov, the Court notes that at the time of the events he was 17 years old. The Court reiterates that it is vital for law-enforcement officers who are in contact with minors in the exercise of their duties to taken due account of the vulnerability inherent in their young age (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 110, ECHR 2015). In the present case, the applicant was detained at the police station all night long and beaten with a stick and threatened with rape. The applicant sustained multiple injuries on the face and body, as well as contusion of both kidneys. The Court considers that given the applicant’s young age at the time and that the ill-treatment inflicted on him with the view to extracting confession had caused severe physical pain and mental suffering, the applicant was subjected to torture (see Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, § 53, 2 October 2008, and Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia, no. 75472/01, §§ 13, 77, 16 September 2010).
132. The Court further notes Mr Y.Y. Tyurin’s injuries, in particular, a closed fracture of his lower jaw (see paragraph 69 above). It considers that the ill-treatment was inflicted on the applicant with the view of extracting confession statements causing severe physical and mental suffering. The Court concludes that the ill-treatment at issue amounted to torture (see Tigran Ayrapetyan, cited above, §§ 13 and 77).
5. Conclusion
133. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of all 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 in respect of Mr Zakalyayev, Mr Yepifanov, Mr Y.Y. Tyurin and Mr R.Y. Tyurin.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
134. Mr Kolykhalov also complained that his detention on remand had been excessively long and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
135. The Government submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status since the Zavodskoy District Court had awarded the applicant compensation amounting to RUB 2,000,000 for unlawful prosecution.
136. The Court observes that in its decision, upheld on appeal, the Zavodskoy District Court recognised that the applicant had been unlawfully prosecuted and that he had been held for five years in inadequate conditions of detention (see paragraphs 47 and 48 above). However, in its decision the court did not examine whether the applicant’s detention on remand had been excessively long or had been sufficiently justified. It focused solely on the issues of the applicant’s unlawful prosecution in view of his acquittal and conditions of his detention in the remand prison. The Court therefore finds that the applicant did not lose his victim status regarding his complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and rejects the Government’s objection.
137. 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.
138. The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration lasted from the date of the applicant’s arrest on 13 January 2008 and until the date of his acquittal on 28 May 2013. It therefore lasted for more than five years and four months.
139. In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
140. 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 merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s detention on remand was excessive.
141. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
142. Mr Avdyukov also raised complaints under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.
A. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention
143. Mr Avdyukov complained that the treatment to which he had been subjected on 29 and 30 November 2005 and 18 May 2006 amounted also to a violation under Article 2 of the Convention.
144. The case-law establishes that it is only in exceptional circumstances that physical ill-treatment by State agents which does not result in death may disclose a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 51, ECHR 2004‑XI).
145. The applicant claimed that at the police stations on respective dates he attempted to jump out of the window because he had been unable to withstand ill-treatment. As to the episode of 29 and 30 November 2005, the Court has already found that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were manifestly ill-founded (see paragraph 109 above). The Court has therefore no grounds to examine whether the events of 29 and 30 November 2005 fall under the scope of Article 2 of the Convention.
146. As to the episode of ill-treatment of 18 May 2006, although the applicant mentions Article 2 of the Convention in his application form, in essence he reiterates his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected. The Court has already found in this respect that the applicant had been subjected to the treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. It therefore considers that it is not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint about the events of 18 May 2006 under Article 2 of the Convention.
B. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention
147. The applicant also complained about his unrecorded detention on 29 and 30 November 2005.
148. The Court reiterates that the six-month period runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 65, 11 December 2018).
149. The Court observes that the applicant’s detention took place on 29 and 30 November 2005. In June 2006 the prosecutor found that the applicant indeed had been detained unlawfully at the police station for several hours. It is unclear whether the applicant pursued this issue further before the domestic authorities. Assuming that the prosecutor’s decision was final in the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant should have lodged his complaint within six month following that decision. However, the applicant lodged a complaint about unrecorded detention with the Court in February 2008, that is more than one year and a half after the above-mentioned decision.
150. The fact that the Sverdlovsk Regional Court made a finding regarding the applicant’s actual date of apprehension is irrelevant for the purpose of calculation of the six-month period, since that finding, especially in the absence of a clear admission of irregular character of the applicant’s initial detention, had no bearing on the availability of any further remedies in respect of the applicant’s unrecorded detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.7077/06 and 12 others, § 66, 26 June 2018). Even assuming that the finding could be seen as an acknowledgement of a violation of Article 5, it does not appear that the applicant tried to pursue any domestic proceedings in this connection.
151. For this reasons, the Court concludes that the applicant failed to comply with the six-month time-limit required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
152. 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.”
A. The parties’ submissions
153. The amounts claimed by the applicants under the head of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses are indicated in the appended table.
154. The Court granted legal aid to Mr Garmashov amounting to 850 euros (EUR) in compensation for the costs and expenses.
155. Mr Prisyazhnyy provided documents and receipts in support of his claim for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. Other applicants did not claim any compensation under the head of costs and expenses.
156. The Government submitted that Article 41 of the Convention should be applied in accordance with the established case-law.
B. The Court’s assessment
157. Wherever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations, and make a financial award.
158. As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish whether they were actually incurred and whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
159. Having regard to the conclusions and principles set out above and the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts.
C. Default interest
160. 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 complaint of Mr Avdyukov about the alleged ill-treatment on 29 and 30 November 2005 and the complaint of Mr Prisyazhnyy about the alleged ill-treatment on 14 January 2014 under Article 3 of the Convention inadmissible;
3. Declares Mr Avdyukov’s complaint about his unrecorded detention on 29 November 2005 under Article 5 of the Convention inadmissible;
4. Declares the remainder of the applications admissible;
5. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in that Mr Kolykhalov and Mr Y.Y. Tyurin and were subjected to torture in police custody, that Mr Avdyukov (as to the events of 18 May 2006), Mr Zakalyayev, Mr Garmashov, Mr Fomin, Mr Yepifanov, Mr R.Y. Tyurin, Mr Shcherbakov and Mr Prisyazhnyy (as to the events of 26 February 2014) were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of all applicants in that no effective investigation into their complaints was carried out by the authorities;
6. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Kolykhalov on account of the excessive length of detention on remand;
7. Holds that there is no need to examine Mr Avdyukov’s complaint about the ill-treatment under Article 2 of the Convention;
8. Holdsthat there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of Mr Zakalyayev, Mr Yepifanov, Mr Y.Y. Tyurin and Mr R.Y. Tyurin;
9. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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 amounts indicated in the appended table at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
10. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 March 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Alena Poláčková
Registrar President
Appendix
| No.
|
Case name
Application no.
Lodged on |
Applicant
Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality
Represented by |
Non-pecuniary damage | Costs and expenses |
| 1 | Avdyukov v. Russia
33373/07
02/07/2007 |
Viktor Vladimirovich AVDYUKOV
04/09/1974 Nizhniy Tagil Russian
Anna Sergeyevna GAYL |
Sought by the applicant | |
| Not claimed | Not claimed | |||
| Awarded by the Court | ||||
| – | – | |||
| 2 | Zakalyayev v. Russia
24534/10
23/03/2010 |
Sergey Ivanovich ZAKALYAYEV
29/04/1959 Bagayevskaya Russian
Viktor Ivanovich ZAKALYAYEV
|
Sought by the applicant | |
| EUR 150,000 | Not claimed | |||
| Awarded by the Court | ||||
| EUR 19,400
(nineteen thousand four hundred euros) |
– | |||
| 3 | Garmashov v. Russia
25400/10
31/03/2010 |
Igor Anatolyevich GARMASHOV
23/11/1975 Dvubratskiy Russian
Ulrich SOMMER
|
Sought by the applicant | |
| EUR 45,000 | Not claimed | |||
| Awarded by the Court | ||||
| EUR 19,400
(nineteen thousand four hundred euros) |
– | |||
| 4 | Kolykhalov v. Russia
20949/11
21/02/2011 |
Konstantin Vladimirovich KOLYKHALOV
15/01/1990 Kemerovo Russian |
Sought by the applicant | |
| EUR 100,000 | Not claimed | |||
| Awarded by the Court | ||||
| EUR 39,700
(thirty nine thousand seven hundred euros) |
– | |||
| 5 | Fomin v. Russia
68556/12
10/09/2012 |
Denis Eduardovich FOMIN
26/09/1989 Petrozavodsk Russian
Nataliya Yevgenyevna FOMINA |
Sought by the applicant | |
| RUB 1,000,000
(about EUR 13,890) |
Not claimed | |||
| Awarded by the Court | ||||
| EUR 13,890
(thirteen thousand eight hundred and ninety euros) |
– | |||
| 6 | Yepifanov v. Russia
71467/13
16/10/2013 |
Sergey Aleksandrovich YEPIFANOV
13/05/1984 Yoshkar-Ola Russian
Dmitriy Leonidovich PEGASHEV
|
Sought by the applicant | |
| EUR 26,000 | Not claimed | |||
| Awarded by the Court | ||||
| EUR 19,400
(nineteen thousand four hundred euros) |
– | |||
| 7 | Tyuriny v. Russia
72354/14
10/11/2014 |
Yuriy Yuryevich TYURIN
16/09/1991 Astrakhan Russian
Roman Yuryevich TYURIN 27/02/1990 Astrakhan Russian
Margarita Vladimirovna GORDEYEVA
|
Sought by the applicants | |
| At the Court’s discretion | Not claimed | |||
| Awarded by the Court | ||||
| To Y.Y. Tyurin – EUR 39,700
(thirty nine thousand seven hundred euros)
To R.Y. Tyurin – EUR 19,400 (nineteen thousand four hundred euros) |
– | |||
| 8 | Shcherbakov v. Russia
34503/17
29/04/2017 |
Vladislav Valeryevich SHCHERBAKOV
24/11/1977 Volchanets Russian
Larisa Viktorovna SHCHERBAKOVA
|
Sought by the applicant | |
| USD 5,000,000
(about EUR 4,539,760) |
Not claimed | |||
| Awarded by the Court | ||||
| EUR 19,400
(nineteen thousand four hundred euros) |
– | |||
| 9 | Prisyazhnyy v. Russia
10918/18
15/02/2018 |
Roman Vladimirovich PRISYAZHNYY
20/02/1978 Artem Russian |
Sought by the applicant | |
| EUR 50,000 | RUB 121,135
(about EUR 1,682) |
|||
| Awarded by the Court | ||||
| EUR 19,400
(nineteen thousand four hundred euros) |
EUR 1,682 | |||
Leave a Reply