THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF KRYUTCHENKO v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 17459\/13)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n26 June 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Kryutchenko v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President, Having deliberated in private on 5 June 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 17459\/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Russian national, Mr Nikolay IvanovichKryutchenko (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 26 January 2013.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr S.I. Kiryukhin, a lawyer practising in Orsk. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 September 2016 the complaints concerning the applicant\u2019s ill\u2011treatment in police custody were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissiblepursuant to Rule\u00a054 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Orsk.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s ill-treatment in police custody<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 May 2005 the applicant, who was walking home after an evening drinking, was stopped on the street by police officers from the patrol and inspection service and driven to the Sovetskiydistrict police station of Orsk (\u0421\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0435\u0420\u041e\u0412\u0414\u0433. \u041e\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430). He attempted to run away, but was stopped and assaulted by the police officers, who kicked him in the stomach. He felt unwell and lost consciousness. The police officers placed him in a cell and did not react when he demanded that they call an ambulance.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was released the next morning. On the evening of 29\u00a0May 2005 he was admitted to hospital with internal bleeding. He spent six weeks in hospital.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0According to forensic medical expert report no. 3634 of 25 July 2005, the applicant had blunt abdominal trauma with a ruptured intestine, which had provoked the development of serofibrinous peritonitis. This injury had been caused by impact with a hard, blunt object, possibly one to two days before the applicant\u2019s hospitalisation, and had caused him \u201cserious health damage\u201d. The applicant also had abrasions on his back and forearms, and circular abrasions on his wrist joints, which had originated from impact with hard, blunt objects during the same period, and had not caused him any \u201chealth damage\u201d.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Forensic medical expert report no. 5684 of 14 December 2011 contained similar information concerning the applicant\u2019s injuries. The expert considered that the injuries had been caused several hours to several days before the applicant\u2019s hospitalisation. The expert excluded the possibility that they had been caused as a result of him falling over.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s alleged ill\u2011treatment<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 May 2005 the Orsk police received information about the applicant\u2019s hospitalisation in Town Hospital no. 2 with blunt abdominal trauma and abrasions on his body.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 June 2005 an investigator from the Orsk Sovetskiy district prosecutor\u2019s office opened a criminal case under Article 111 \u00a7 3 of the Criminal Code (physical assault causing \u201cserious health damage\u201d).<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 July 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 October 2005 the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was suspended under Article 208 \u00a7 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, owing to the inability to identify the individuals to be charged.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 January and 25 April 2012 the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was restarted, in view of the need to take additional investigative measures.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 March and 18 July 2012 the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was suspended again, on the same grounds as before.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Civil claim and compensation<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0In 2012 the applicant brought a civil claim against various State authorities, including the Russian Ministry of Finance, seeking 6,000,000\u00a0Russian roubles (RUB) incompensation for his ill\u2011treatment at the police station and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 July 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk allowed the applicant\u2019s claim in part and awarded him RUB 150,000 (the equivalent of about 3,800 euros) in compensation. It established that the applicant had been taken into police custody in good health and that his injuries had been caused at the police station, since the State authorities had failed to provide a plausible explanation for the injuries or any evidence showing that he could have sustained them elsewhere.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 October 2012 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody, that theensuing investigation had not been prompt and thorough,and that the amount of compensation awarded to him by the domestic courts had been inadequate. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article 3.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The question of whether the applicant may still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of his alleged ill\u2011treatment is closely linked to the merits of his complaints under that provision. The Court therefore decides to join this matter to the merits.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the facts established in the judgment of the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk of 24 July 2012 (as upheld by the Orenburg Regional Court on 9 October 2012), the Court finds that the ill\u2011treatment suffered by the applicant at the hands of the police amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see G\u00e4fgen v. Germany [GC], no.\u00a022978\/05, \u00a7\u00a089, ECHR 2010).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0It further finds that the delay in opening the criminal case and commencing a full criminal investigation into the applicant\u2019s credible assertions of serious ill\u2011treatment at the hands of the police disclosing elements of a criminal offence, as well as the way the investigation was conducted thereafter, show that the authorities did not take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence and did not make a serious attempt to find out what had happened. They thus failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s ill\u2011treatment in police custody (see Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519\/09, \u00a7 64, 5\u00a0February 2015).<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds that in the absence of an effective investigation, the applicant can still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 in respect of his alleged ill\u2011treatment (see Razzakov, cited above, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further finds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in that the applicant has been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. There has also been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb on account of the lack of an effective investigation into his inhuman and degrading treatment by the police.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also complained that the domestic criminal and civil remedies had not been effective. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 13.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has found that the respondent State is responsible under Article 3 of the Convention for the inhuman and degrading treatment suffered by the applicant at the hands of the police. The applicant\u2019s complaints in this regard are therefore \u201carguable\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a013 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the applicant complained that he did not have an effective criminal-law remedy in respect of his allegations of ill-treatment by the police, the Court notes that this part of the complaint does not raise any separate issue from that examined under the procedural limb of Article\u00a03 and considers that there is no need to examine it separately under Article 13.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the applicant complained that he did not have an effective civil-law remedy in respect of the same allegations, the Court notes that Russian law enabled the applicant to lodge a civil claim for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the ill\u2011treatment. The fact that his claim was only partially allowed is not in itself sufficient to render the remedy ineffective within the meaning of Article 13. The Court finds that it has not been shown that the civil-law remedy was ineffective (see Shestopalov v. Russia, no.\u00a046248\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 72-74, 28 March 2017).<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention as regards the civil proceedings.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered that claim excessive.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0Making its assessment on an equitable basis, and taking into account the amount awarded to the applicant by the domestic courts, the Court awards the applicant the amount claimed in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join to the merits the question whether the applicant may still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe application admissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the applicant may still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in that the applicant has been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s inhuman and degrading treatment by the police;<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention as regards the criminal\u2011law remedy;<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention as regards the civil proceedings;<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three monthsEUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; and<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 June 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolienSchukking, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n