THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF NEUYMIN v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 42265\/06)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n24 September 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Neuymin 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 3 September 2019,<\/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. 42265\/06) 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 Anton Sergeyevich Neuymin (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 18 September 2006.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Ms S. Yevdokimova, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially 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.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. The parties submitted written observations on the admissibility and merits.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1979 and lived inYekaterinburg before his arrest.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment in police custody<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 October 2004 the applicant was apprehended by police on suspicion of murder and taken to the Verkh-Isetskiy District Police Department of Yekaterinburg where he was kept until 5.40 p.m. on 27\u00a0October 2004.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant, between 6 p.m. on 25 October and midnight on 26 October 2004 he had been ill-treated by police officers. He was kicked and hit on various parts of the body, suffocated with a gas mask, and electrocuted. The applicant remained handcuffed and blindfolded at all times.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Around midnight on 26 October 2004 the applicant, assisted by an assigned lawyer,agreed to sign a confession. He was then taken by police officers to the crime scene for the on-site verification of his statements.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day the applicant\u2019s relatives retained Ms P. as the applicant\u2019s counsel. The investigator K. was immediately notified of the fact.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 October 2004 at 5.40 a.m. the applicant arrived to thepolice ward(IVS) of Yekaterinburg. Upon his arrival he was examined by resident medical officers who recorded numerous bodily injuries, including epithelised thermal burns on both forearms, scratches, bruising on the back, and abrasions on the nose and forehead. These injuries had also been listed in a medical certificate issued on the same day by Traumatology Department No. 2 in Yekaterinburg Town Clinical Hospital No. 36.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Later that day the applicant, assisted by Ms P., was once again questioned by the investigator.He withdrew his earlier confession, having noted that it had been obtained under duress. He also complained about inability to choose a lawyer at the time of his arrest and to notify his relatives about it.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 October 2004 the applicant was transferred to pre-trial detention facility SIZO No. 1 in Yekaterinburg. His injuries were once again recorded by the medical staff of the facility upon his arrival.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 October 2004, in response to a motion filed by Ms P, investigator K. ordered a medical expert examination of the applicant. The applicant was only examined on 17\u00a0December 2004. The expert discovered that he had two scars on his right forearm, a scar on his left forearm, and a scar on his left wrist. The expert was unable to establish the exact date and cause of the injuries due to the lapse of time.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 December 2005 the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, relying inter alia on the applicant\u2019s confession statement, convicted him of murder.The conviction was subsequently upheld by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 22 March 2006. The courts took note of the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment allegations, but dismissed them as there was no proof that the injuries had been inflicted in police custody.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Inquiry into the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Between October 2004 and February 2006 the applicant and his lawyer Ms P. lodged at least seven complaints with the Verkh-Isetskiy District of Yekaterinburg and Sverdlovsk Region Prosecutors\u2019 Offices requesting the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 February 2006 investigator Sh. in the Verkh-Isetskiy District Prosecutor Office refused to open a criminal case. On 17 May 2006 the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg quashed that decision and ordered a further inquiry.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 June 2006 investigator Sh.once again refused to institute criminal proceedings in absence of any evidence of ill-treatment.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 November 2006 the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, acting upon the applicant\u2019s appeal against the investigator\u2019s decision of 19 June 2006,closed the proceedings on res judicata grounds. It found that the applicant\u2019s allegations had already been examined during the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction. On 13 December 2006 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the District Court\u2019s decision on appeal.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0For the relevant domestic law see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a096-102, 24 July 2014 andOlisov and others v. Russia, nos. 10825\/09 and two others, \u00a7\u00a7 67-68, 2 May 2017.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police and that no effective investigation had been carried out into his complaints. The Court finds it appropriate to examine the applicant\u2019s allegations under Article\u00a03 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 20.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments relying on the conclusions of the domestic inquiries, which,according to them, had been effective.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 21.\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 1.\u00a0\u00a0General principles<\/em><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant general principles were reiterated by the Court in the case of Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 81-88, ECHR 2015).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that after an interview in the Verkh-Isetskiy District Police Department of Yekaterinburgafter the arrest a number ofinjuries were recorded on the applicant\u2019s body by medical officials of the detention facility where he had been transferred directly from the police department (see paragraphs 6-9 above).In the aftermath of the interview the applicant signed a written statement confessing to murder. That finding is sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicant\u2019s account of events and to satisfy the Court that the applicant\u2019s statement that he had been ill-treated by the police officers in the Verkh-Isetskiy District Police Department is credible.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the burden of proof shifted onto the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation which cast doubt on the version of events given by the applicant.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that in their observations the Government indicated that the applicant\u2019s allegations were examined by relevant domestic authorities and dismissed as unsubstantiated. However, neither the judgement of 26 December 2005 nor multiple refusals to initiate criminal proceedings gave credible explanation of the applicant\u2019s injuries. For instance, no explanation was provided to the cause of thermal burns which could not have been received by the applicant during his apprehension by police.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The above findings are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the Government failed to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the applicant\u2019s injuries. Therefore, the Court accepts the applicant\u2019s account of events.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to all the circumstances of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and the applicant\u2019s state of health, the Court is satisfied that the acts of physical violence inflicted on the applicant on 26 October 2004 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment<\/em><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that in response to the applicant\u2019s allegations that his injuries were the result of ill-treatment in police custody the domestic authorities conducted a pre-investigative inquiry, which is an initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under the Russian law. It should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and an investigation if the information has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin v. Russia, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 129 and 132-36). In Lyapin case the Court held that a pre-investigation inquiry is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of an effective investigation under Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities\u2019 refusal to institute a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment was indicative of the State\u2019s failure to comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 30.\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 authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody, as required by Article 3 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that his conviction had been based on a confession statements received as a result of his ill-treatment and that the trial court had failed to give due regard to his allegations of ill-treatment. He did notrely on any particular Convention provision. The Court finds it appropriate to examine this complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that in addition to the applicant\u2019s written confession statement the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on a plethora of evidence obtained by the investigation. The trial court had examined the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment and had dismissed them as unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 33.\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 34.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the admission of confession statements obtained in violation of Article 3 renders the criminal proceedings as a whole automatically unfair, irrespective of the probative value of those statements and irrespective of whether their use was decisive in securing the defendant\u2019s conviction (see G\u00e4fgen v. Germany [GC], no.22978\/05, \u00a7 166, ECHR 2010 and Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722\/09, \u00a7 90, 6 October 2015).<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has already found that the applicant\u2019s confession was obtained as a result of the inhuman and degrading treatment to which he had been subjected in police custody. The trial and appeal courts did not exclude the confession statement as inadmissible evidence and referred to it when convicting the applicant of a crime to which he had confessed in that written statement.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0In such circumstances, the Court concludes that the domestic courts\u2019 use of the applicant\u2019s confession obtained in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, regardless of its impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings, has rendered the whole trial unfair.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 38.\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 39.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested these claims and submitted that the requested amount was excessive. They also argued that the finding of a violation would constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction in relation to a claimed violation under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the applicant must have suffered a certain degree of stress and frustration as a result of the violations found. The actual amount claimed is, however, excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis and having regard in particular to the fact that domestic law provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see Zadumov v. Russia, no.\u00a02257\/12, \u00a7 80, 12\u00a0December 2017), the Court awards the applicant 25,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 43.\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 application admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police and that there had been no effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the use in evidence of the applicant\u2019s confession statements obtained as a result of his inhuman and degrading treatment;<\/p>\n 4.\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 Stateat the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/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 5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 September 2019, 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\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nGilberto Felici, 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