THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF PANKOV v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 52550\/08)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n15 May 2018<\/p>\n
FINAL
\n15\/08\/2018<\/p>\n
This judgment has become final under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Pankov v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Helena J\u00e4derblom, President, Having deliberated in private on 17 April 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. 52550\/08) 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 Vladislav Stanislavovich Pankov (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 19 August 2008.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr Z. Zhulanov, a lawyer practising in Perm. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr\u00a0G.\u00a0Matyushkin, the 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\u00a0The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to ill\u2011treatment while in police custody and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 April 2011 the above-mentioned complaint was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Perm.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 April 2007 at about 11 p.m. the applicant was stopped by the police and taken to the Dzerzhinskiy District Department of the Interior of the town of Perm (\u0414\u0437\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439\u0420\u041e\u0412\u0414\u0433. \u041f\u0435\u0440\u043c\u0438 \u2013\u201cthe police station\u201d) for an identity check.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0After the applicant\u2019s identity was established the applicant was informed that he was wanted on suspicion of having committed a crime.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 April 2007 at 1 a.m. the applicant was placed in the cell for administrative detainees at the police station. At 9 a.m. he was handed over to a police officer, P. According to the applicant, P. subjected him to ill\u2011treatment by administering several blows to his chest, abdomen and face.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently the applicant was interrogated by an investigator, B., in the presence of N. (the head of the police station), P., and Zh. (another police officer), as a witness in criminal case no.\u00a01470 instituted on 8\u00a0March 2007 under Article\u00a0161 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code (robbery). After his questioning the applicant was released.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Immediately after his release on 10 April 2007 the applicant complained at the police station of having been beaten by P.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day the applicant went to a traumatology centre, where he was diagnosed with bruising on the left side of his forehead.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 April 2007 the applicant complained of the beatings to the prosecutor\u2019s office. He was made to undergo an expert examination, which revealed the following injuries: bruises on the left side of his forehead, at the outer corner of his left eye and on the left side of his neck, and an abrasion behind his left ear. The expert concluded that the above-mentioned injuries could have been caused by his being hit by a hard blunt object(s) or by that object being drawn across the applicant\u2019s skin, possibly at the time and under the circumstances indicated by the applicant.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 June 2007 the investigator of the Dzerzhinskiy district prosecutor\u2019s office of the town of Perm decided not to institute criminal proceedings against P., in the absence of any indication that a criminal act had been committed. Having questioned the applicant and others involved in the incident and having examined the medical evidence, the investigator found that there were no objective data confirming that the injuries had been inflicted by the police officer. The investigator noted, in particular, the discrepancies between the applicant\u2019s description of the alleged beatings and the injuries that he had actually sustained.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 June 2007 the applicant challenged the above-mentioned decision before the court.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 July 2007 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Perm (\u201cthe District Court\u201d) declined to examine the applicant\u2019s challenge.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Following an appeal by the applicant, on 24 July 2007 the Perm Regional Court (\u201cthe Regional Court\u201d) quashed the decision of 2\u00a0July 2007.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 August 2007 the District Court held that the decision of 9\u00a0June 2007 not to institute criminal proceedings against P. had been unlawful and unjustified. The court held that the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment had been substantiated by medical evidence.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 September 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 24\u00a0August 2007 (since it had been delivered in the absence of P.), and remitted the matter for fresh examination by a different bench.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 9\u00a0October 2007 the District Court held that the decision of 9\u00a0June 2007 not to institute criminal proceedings against P. had been unlawful and unjustified. The court pointed out that the decision in question had been based on the submissions of the police officers, without due assessment of the fact that the applicant, who had had no bodily injuries prior to his arrest by the police (as confirmed by I., A. and Pan.), had been diagnosed as having such injuries immediately after his release from the police station.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 13\u00a0November 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 9\u00a0October 2007 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh examination by a different bench.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 29\u00a0November 2007 the District Court again held that the decision of 9\u00a0June 2007 not to institute criminal proceedings against P. had been unlawful and unjustified. The court\u2019s reasoning was similar to that in respect of the judgment of 9\u00a0October 2007.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Following an appeal by the district prosecutor on 20\u00a0December 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 29\u00a0November 2007 on appeal and referred the matter again for fresh examination by a different bench.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 30\u00a0January 2008 the District Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim. The court found that the investigator had rightly come to the conclusion that there had been no objective information confirming the applicant\u2019s allegation of ill-treatment by the police officer, P., and that the above-mentioned conclusion had been reached on the basis of comprehensive evidence.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Following an appeal by the applicant, on 19\u00a0February 2008 the Regional Court upheld the above-mentioned judgment on appeal.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0For 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.\u00a046956\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a096-102, 24\u00a0July 2014, and Ryabtsev v. Russia, no.\u00a013642\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a048\u201152, 14\u00a0November 2013.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained, relying on Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention, that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that no effective investigation into his complaint had been carried out. The Court will examine the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article\u00a03 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article 3<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested that argument. They noted discrepancies between the applicant\u2019s account of the alleged ill-treatment and the medical evidence, which had only confirmed the bruising on the applicant\u2019s forehead but had recorded no injuries to the applicant\u2019s chest or abdomen. They therefore considered that there were no reasons to assert \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Government further considered that the investigation carried out into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment had fully complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. There had been no procrastination or abuse of office on the part of the investigator in charge of the applicant\u2019s case. The pre-investigation inquiry (see paragraph 13 above) into the circumstances under which the applicant had been allegedly subjected to ill-treatment had been carried out by an independent body. The applicant\u2019s allegations had been subsequently subjected to examination by domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction, which had undertaken a proper assessment of the applicant\u2019s arguments and delivered lawful and well-reasoned decisions.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantmaintained his complaint. He argued that while he had had no injuries when he had been taken to the police station at 11 p.m. on 9\u00a0April 2007 (as confirmed by concordant evidence, including written submissions by eyewitnesses I., A. and Pan., and not contested by the Government), he had been discovered to have an injury on his head when he had been released from the police station on the afternoon of 10 April 2017 (which was also not contested by the Government). The applicant promptly brought an arguable claim of ill-treatment before the domestic authorities. However, no effective investigation had followed. In particular, although the pre-investigation inquiry had concluded that there had been no objective data confirming the fact that the injuries had been inflicted under the circumstances indicated by the applicant, no explanation had been provided by the domestic authorities as to how the applicant had sustained his injuries.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/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. It further notes 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\u00a0The relevant general principles were reiterated by the Court\u2019s Grand Chamber in the case of Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a081-88, ECHR 2015). In particular, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of individuals within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such detention. The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the version of events given by the victim. In the absence of such an explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government. That is justified by the fact that those in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them (ibid., \u00a7\u00a083). The same principleapplies to all cases in which a person is under the control of the police or a similar authority (ibid., \u00a7\u00a084).<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Credibility of the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment and the presumption of fact<\/em><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that on 9 April 2007 the applicant was brought to the police station for an identity check. On his release in the afternoon of 10\u00a0April 2007 he was found to have sustained injuries. The medical certificate issued by the traumatology centre on 10 April 2007 attests to bruising on the forehead, and the results of the expert medical examination that followed on 11\u00a0April 2007 confirmed the presence of several bruises on the applicant\u2019s face and neck and an abrasion behind his ear. According to the latter report, the injuries in question could have originated in impact from a hard, blunt object, possibly at the time and under the circumstances indicated by the applicant. The Court considers that the injuries could arguably have been sustained as a result of the applicant\u2019s alleged ill\u2011treatment, and in particular as a result of his being physically assaulted.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The above-mentioned factors are sufficient to justify a presumption in favour of the applicant\u2019s account of events and to satisfy the Court that the applicant has made credible allegations of ill-treatment in police custody.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Whether an effective investigation was carried out into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment<\/em><\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the applicant\u2019s allegations that his injuries were the result of police ill-treatment were dismissed by the domestic investigating authorities. The investigator based his findings on the results of the pre-investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and the carrying out of an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0129). The investigator\u2019s refusal to initiate criminal proceedings was upheld by the domestic courts.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates its finding that the mere carrying out of a pre\u2011investigation 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\u2011treatment 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 and which constitutes an effective remedy for victims of police ill-treatment under domestic law (see Lyapin, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 129 and 132-36,and Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a010825\/09 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a080-82, 2\u00a0May 2017, with further extensive references).<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has no reason to hold otherwise in the present case, which involves credible allegations of ill-treatment of which the authorities were promptly made aware. It finds that the investigating authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of police ill-treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Whether the Government provided explanations capable of casting doubt on the applicant\u2019s version of events<\/em><\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that neither the authorities at the domestic level nor the Government in the proceedings before the Court advanced any explanation as to the origin of the applicant\u2019s injuries.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The Court therefore concludes that the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the applicant\u2019s account of events, which it therefore finds established (see Olisov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a085).<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Legal classification of the treatment<\/em><\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds that the police subjected the applicant to inhuman and degrading treatment.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Conclusion<\/em><\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb and a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length and unfairness of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the partiality of the domestic court, and the absence of effective domestic remedies for his complaints.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as it falls within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 42.\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 43.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered that if the Court were to find a violation of the Convention, the Court\u2019s judgment in this respect should in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that it has found a violation under both the substantive and procedural heads of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment by the police and the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the suffering and frustration caused to the applicant cannot be compensated for by the mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also claimed EUR 2,000 for the costs of his legal representation before the Court.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered that in view of the relative simplicity of the case the sum claimed by the applicant was excessive.<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses in the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 49.\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\u00a0Declaresthe complaint under Article\u00a03of the Convention concerning the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment in police custody and lack of effective investigation into his allegations admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat 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 3.\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 allegations;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three monthsfrom the date on which the judgment becomes final, in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent Stateat the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips\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 Helena J\u00e4derblom THIRD SECTION CASE OF PANKOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 52550\/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 May 2018 FINAL 15\/08\/2018 This judgment has become final under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case…<\/p>\n
\nHelen Keller,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nAlena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides,
\nJolien Schukking,
\nMar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nRegistrar\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"