CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s9589A2DE { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE3CBA86F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sB90B0BD3 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.4pt 1.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s95937AA7 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt 1.02pt; vertical-align:top } .sFA23A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .s5CE19A29 { width:28.35pt } .s1A8BA442 { width:56.7pt } .sA349D7B5 { width:7.1pt } .s26507CD6 { width:70.9pt } .s34605D42 { width:63.75pt } .sC66C5439 { width:104.45pt } .s708D50B8 { width:2.55pt } .s7B05D7B5 { width:2.6pt } .s5D3401B8 { width:74.7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 26 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 45783/20 Marina Vitalyevna CHEBYKINA against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 5 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern a situation of domestic violence, of which the applicants were victims at the hands of their (former) partners, husbands or other male family members. A short summary of each application is provided in the appendix. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In all cases, as regards the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in connection with the violent and threatening behaviour of the applicants’ family members or (former) partners, did the Russian authorities discharge their obligation to protect the applicants against all forms of violence (see Volodina v.   Russia , no.   41261/17, 9 July 2019, and Kurt v. Austria [GC], no.   62903/15, 15   June 2021)? In particular, (a)     Did the Russian State discharge the obligation to establish and apply effectively a legislative framework for punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims? (b)     Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to take the reasonable measures that might have been expected of them in the circumstances in order to avert further incidents after the applicants had reported the initial incidents to them? Did the Russian authorities design and implement a strategy for risk assessment and management of domestic violence? (c)     Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to conduct an effective investigation into all instances of violence which had been reported to them and to bring the perpetrators to account by imposing sufficiently dissuasive sanctions?   2.     In application no. 47414/20, as regards the findings of Russian courts in the eviction proceedings and the absence of a legal mechanism requiring the offender to leave the shared residence and to abstain from approaching or contacting the victim, did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to secure the effective enjoyment by the applicant of her right to respect for home and private life under Article 8 of the Convention (see Levchuk v.   Ukraine , no.   17496/19, 3 September 2020, and, mutatis mutandis , Irina   Smirnova v.   Ukraine , no. 1870/05, 13   October 2016)? APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by 1. 45783/20 Chebykina v. Russia 15/10/2020 Marina Vitalyevna CHEBYKINA 1990 Kaluga Andrey RUDOV Before and during the divorce proceedings the applicant’s (former) husband made death threats against her which the police refused to investigate as not being sufficiently “real” (05/03/2020). When interviewing the applicant’s husband, the police officer revealed to him her current whereabouts where she was sheltering, together with their child. On 26/03/2020 the ex-husband attacked the applicant near her house; she had her injuries recorded and complained to the police. On account of this incident the ex-husband was convicted of an administrative offence and given a fine. On 11/04/2020 the ex-husband threw stones at the applicant’s window; she reported the incident to the police; the police did not open an investigation. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed for judicial review (final decision – the Kaluga Regional Court, 06/07/2020). 2. 47414/20 Ankudinova v. Russia 12/10/2020 Lyudmila Alekseyevna ANKUDINOVA 1952 St Petersburg The applicant lives together with her son born in 1975. She is the owner of the flat over which he has the right of perpetual use on account of his having declined to take part in the privatisation (see the legal framework in Kopytok v.   Russia , no.   48812/09, §§   14-18, 15 January 2019). The son has been abusing the applicant verbally and physically. He was convicted for threatening to kill her (08/05/2018; 80 hours’ compulsory labour) and also of battery (17/05/2018, fine of 6,000 Russian roubles). The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to have the son evicted. While the courts acknowledged that the son had been using violence against her, they held that it was not a sufficient ground to terminate his right of use over the flat (final decision – Supreme Court of Russia, 6 August 2020). 3. 4605/21 Sakova v. Russia 25/12/2020 Lyudmila Fedorovna SAKOVA 1974 Orenburg Valentina FROLOVA Since 2018 the applicant has been a victim of physical and verbal violence perpetrated by her brother. He has been fined several times in administrative proceedings for his violent conduct (most recently on 26/06/2020, the appeal judgment of the Orenburgskiy District Court in the Orenburg Region) and also criminally convicted of causing minor bodily injuries and battery and sentenced to community work (Articles 115 and 116 of the Criminal Code; 28/05/2019, Orenburgskiy District Court). The applicant was unable to obtain any protection from the recurrent violence, such as a restraining order or dissuasive sanctions.   4.   11887/21   N.S. v. Russia   08/02/2021   N.S. 1988 Moscow   Mariya NEMOVA Following their separation in 2018, the former partner has been stalking and harassing the applicant, loitering in front of her house, dousing her with green liquid, scribbling offences on her door and making threats to kill her. The police refused to investigate (the most recent decision – 18/11/2020, Zhukovskiy district police in Kaluga Region; the most recent complaint and request for witness protection measures – 22/12/2020). Fearing a recurrence of violence, the applicant stays in her flat and does not go out alone. 5. 16273/21 Kurkakhanova v. Russia 18/03/2021 Olga Viktorovna KURKAKHANOVA 1992 Mahilioŭ, Belarus Vanessa KOGAN The applicant is a national of Belarus. Ten days after the birth of her daughter in 2018, her husband abducted the baby and took her to his native village in Chechnya. His family prevented the applicant from seeing her daughter outside their house. The husband beat the applicant on 22/02/18, 17/03/18 and 15/05/18, including when she was breastfeeding the baby. On 22/05/18 the applicant reported the beatings to the police (refusal to investigate on 16/07/18; quashed on 08/05/19, one day before examination of an application for judicial review; refusal to investigate on 19/06/19; quashed on 18/10/20, on the day of examination of an application for judicial review).