CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } Published on 5 August 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   47254/21 F.A.D. v. Russia against Russia and 7 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 11 July 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 3 § 2 of the Convention relating to ineffective investigation into allegations of ill ‑ treatment committed by private individuals which are the subject of well ‑ established case law of the Court (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no.   32704/04, 17 December 2009, Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, 31   July 2012 and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, 9 July 2019).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 § 2 of the Convention (ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Factual information, including medical evidence and domestic proceedings Specific grievances Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law     47254/21* 18/09/2021 (anonymity)   F.A.D. 2002   Vanessa Kogan Moscow The applicant, a minor at the time, complains about two counts of rape and an attempted rape committed by Es. and Ya. On 07/03/2019 and 11/03/2019 Es. drugged the applicant and raped her. On 13/03/2019 Es. and T. beat the applicant up and attempted to rape her. The applicant managed to escape to a cafe close by, where the patrons called the police. The applicant was taken to a hospital. The medical practitioners reported her case to the police which instituted a preliminary inquiry. The investigator commissioned a forensic medical expert examination and questioned the applicant, Es. and T. The applicant’s father negotiated with Es.’s family and agreed that Es. marry the applicant. In return the applicant was to withdraw her complaints. The applicant complied.   On 12/04/2019 the investigator refused to open criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape and on 23/04/2019 charged the applicant with perjury.   According to the applicant, Es. repeatedly beat her up during their marriage. In the late April 2019, after beatings, she miscarried and left Es. She complained to the prosecutor’s office explaining that she had withdrawn her complaints under duress. The investigative committee re-opened the case. On 05/11/2020 the investigator dismissed the applicant’s allegations of rape and battery. Subsequently the case was re-opened. As of 16/09/2022 investigation into rape, battery and perjury were pending. Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v.   Russia, nos.   55974/16 and 3   others, §   118, 14   December 2021),   Delay in opening criminal investigation (Denis Vasilyev v.   Russia, no. 32704/04, §   124, 17   December 2009),   Shortcomings recognised by national authorities (Tyagunova v. Russia, no.   19433/07, § 71, 31 July 2012),   Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no.   41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),   Failure to secure the applicant’s right to participate effectively in the investigation (Denis Vasilyev v.   Russia, no. 32704/04, §   126, 17   December 2009) Art. 8 (1) - Private life - In conjunction with Article 3,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 3 - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women     61267/21 22/11/2021 Lyudmila Alekseyevna POZDEYEVA 1976   Valeriy Viktorovich Kanayev Diveyevo The applicant was subjected to repeated beatings and threats by her ex-husband P. on 06/12/2019, 25/05/2021 and 27/09/20201. P. was found administratively liable in respect of the incident of 06/12/2019. On 18/08/2021 the police discontinued administrative proceedings against P. in respect of the incident of 29/05/2021. On 26/10/2021 the justice of the peace found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient detail to support her allegations and returned the complaint to the applicant advising her to provide further detail. Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9   July 2019) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in conjunction with Article 3,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 3 - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women     16970/22* 22/03/2022 Olesya Nikolayevna KARABANOVA 1975   Egbert Wesselink Utrecht On 07/09/2018 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant’s partner K. on the charges of repeated beatings and degrading treatment in respect of the period between 30/04/2017 and 08/08/2017. The applicant’s earlier complaints were dismissed on at least six occasions.   On 17/01/2020 K. was indicted. On 18/03/2020 the justice of the peace found K. guilty as charged and released him from serving a sentence which became time barred. On 16/06/2020 the Iglinskiy District Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan quashed the conviction and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 06/11/2020 the justice of the peace found K. guilty as charged and released him from serving a prison sentence which became time barred. The applicant’s claims for damages were left without consideration. She was advised to lodge the claims in civil proceedings.   On 18//03/2021 the District Court amended the judgment of 06/11/2020, recognised the applicant’s right for the examination of her claims for damages and remitted the matter to the justice of the peace.   On 30/04/2021 the justice of the peace transferred the applicant’s civil case to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ufa.   On 22/09/2021 the 6th Cassation Cour of General Jurisdiction quashed the judgments of 06/11/2020 and of 18/03/2021, as regards the applicant’s claims for damages and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The proceedings were pending as of 16/09/2022.   Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v.   Russia, nos.   55974/16 and 3 others, §   118, 14   December 2021),   Delay in opening criminal investigation (Denis Vasilyev v.   Russia, no. 32704/04, §   124, 17   December 2009),   Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no.   41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019)       17111/22 22/03/2022 Natasha Beslanovna SADAKIYEVA 1994   Egbert Wesselink Utrecht The applicant’s family was against her decision to apply for child custody, while, according to the local customs in Ingushetia, her ex-husband had a right to keep the children after the divorce.   On 20/09/2021 the applicant’s father B. came to talk to the applicant. He hit her on the head and punched her in the nose. The applicant lost consciousness. The policeman, who showed up after the neighbours’ call, left after B. told him that he had had to educate his daughter.   On 22/09/2021 the applicant was admitted to hospital where she underwent treatment for concussion and bruises on the head and the nose. On 11/10/2021 the applicant had a fight with her brother A. He hit her on the head and hips and punched her in the face. Then he fired a traumatic pistol five times. The applicant was admitted to hospital on the same day. She was released on 18/10/2021.   On 19/10/2021 the policemen refused to accept the applicant’s complaint and she sent it to the police by email. She submitted the relevant medical documentation and asked the police to protect her against domestic violence.   On 10/11/2021 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings. They questioned B. and A. and the applicant’s neighbours with examining the medical documentation or questioning the applicant and a taxi driver who had helped him to go into hiding.   Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v.   Russia, nos.   55974/16 and 3 others, §   118, 14   December 2021),   Failure to collect evidence and other shortcomings (Denis Vasilyev v.   Russia, no.   32704/04, § 127, 17   December 2009; and Tyagunova v.   Russia, no. 19433/07, § 72, 31   July 2012),   Limited scope of the initial inquiry and failure to secure evidence (Tyagunova v.   Russia, no. 19433/07, § 69, 31 July 2012; and Volodina v.   Russia, no.   41261/17, § 96, 9 July 2019) Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - In conjunction with Article 3,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 3 - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women     35206/22* 01/07/2022 Maria Andreyevna VYLEGZHANINA 1990   Anastasiya Zakharova Utrecht On 01/03/2020 the applicant’s former partner hit the applicant in the face causing bruises and concussion. The applicant complained to the police of the same date. On 10/03/2020 and 18/05/2020 the complaint was dismissed. Each time the relevant decision was quashed by the prosecutor’s office as unsubstantiated.   On 23/09/2020 the justice of the peace instituted criminal proceedings against K. The court held 24 hearings. On most occasions they were adjourned for K.’s failure to appear or upon his request (sick leave, etc.). The bailiff failed to locate K. and to ensure his participation in the trial. On 06/06/2022 the justice of the peace put K.’s name on the wanted list and suspended the trial. Delay in opening criminal investigation (Denis Vasilyev v.   Russia, no.   32704/04, §   124, 17   December 2009),   Failure to collect evidence and other shortcomings (Denis Vasilyev v.   Russia, no.   32704/04, § 127, 17   December 2009; and Tyagunova v.   Russia, no.   19433/07, § 72, 31   July 2012)       39624/22* 24/07/2022 Household Yuliya Mikhaylovna CHERNIGINA 1979   Aleksandr Sergeyevich CHERNIGIN 2011   Valentina Nikolayevna Frolova Moscow The applicants (mother and son) complain about domestic violence in respect of the first applicant’s former partner X. between 09/10/2020 and 10/08/2020 (approximately 17 incidents). X. repeatedly beat the first applicant up, threatened her and insulted her often in the presence of the second applicant. Each time the first applicant complained to the police. Following a preliminary inquiry, the police refused to institute criminal proceedings against Sh. Subsequently those decisions were quashed by the prosecutor who opened criminal investigation on the charges of repeated beatings and degrading treatment on 07/08/2020.   On 09/04/2021 the justice of the peace found Sh. guilty as charged in respect of seven incidents and sentenced him to restricted liberty for a year. The justice of the peace awarded RUB 50,000 to the first applicant in damages. On 29/07/2021 the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow amended the said judgment and increased the award to RUB   150,000. On 25/01/2022 the 2nd Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction reduced Sh.’s sentence to 10 months’ restricted liberty. On 23/05/2022 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the first applicant’s appeal. Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9   July 2019),   Delay in opening criminal investigation (Denis Vasilyev v.   Russia, no. 32704/04, §   124, 17   December 2009),   Limited scope of the initial inquiry and failure to secure evidence (Tyagunova v.   Russia, no. 19433/07, § 69, 31 July 2012; and Volodina v.   Russia, no. 41261/17, § 96, 9 July 2019),   Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no.   41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),   Shortcomings recognised by national authorities (Tyagunova v. Russia, no.   19433/07, § 71, 31 July 2012) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - In conjunction with Article 3,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 3 - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women     47465/22* 10/09/2022 Olga Olegovna KOBYLKINA 1984   Anastasiya Vladimirovna Kopteyeva Chita On 25/10/2020 the applicant complained to the police about death threats made by her former partner Ye. On 04/11/2020 her complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated. On 22/01/2021 the said decision was quashed by the prosecutor’s office. On 15/02/2021 the police opened a criminal case against Ye., who was released on an undertaking to appear before the court.   On 02/05/2021 Ye. entered the applicant’s house, broke the window, hit her in the face and threatened to strangle her. The applicant’s relevant complaint was dismissed repeatedly (the latest decision was taken on 13/08/2021). On 30/07/2021 and 13/09/2021 the justice of the peace found both the applicant and Ye. guilty of having inflicted physical pain on each other. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine (RUB   5,000) and Ye. was sentenced to 60 hours’ compulsory work. The applicant did not appeal. On 06/06/2021 Ye. beat the applicant up. On 13/09/2021 the justice of the peace sentenced him to 60 hours’ compulsory work.   On 19/10/2021 the Priargunskiy District court of the Zabaykalskiy Region found Ye. guilty of death threat (in respect of the incident of 25/10/2021) and sentenced him to 1.5 years’ imprisonment. Ye. was arrested in the courtroom. On 03/02/2022 the Zabaykalskiy Regional Court upheld Ye.’s conviction on appeal. On 18/08/2022 the 8th Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v.   Russia, nos.   55974/16 and 3 others, §   118, 14   December 2021),   Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no.   41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),   Delay in opening criminal investigation (Denis Vasilyev v.   Russia, no. 32704/04, §   124, 17   December 2009),   Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no.   41261/17, § 99, 9   July 2019) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in conjunction with Article 3,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 3 - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women,   Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims     49519/22 29/09/2022 Natalya Shoydonovna SHOYDONOVA 1975   Anastasiya Vladimirovna Kopteyeva Chita The applicant was repeatedly subjected to beatings, threats and degrading treatment by her partner A. who was a prosecutor at the relevant time between 2019 and 11/05/2020. The applicant did not report the first incidents to the police. On 09/04/2020 the applicant had an altercation with A. who beat her up. She tried to defend herself with a knife and slightly cut A.’s shoulder. Both the applicant and A. lodged the complaints. Subsequently A. asked the applicant to withdraw her complaint which she did. The investigator refused to open criminal investigation in that respect. On 09/06/2020 the justice of the peace subjected the applicant to an administrative fine of RUB 5,000. On 30/07/2020 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita upheld the said judgment on appeal. The courts reasoned that the applicant failed to prove that she had acted in self-defence.   On 16/04/2020 A. was dismissed from the prosecutor’s office. On 10/05/2020 he beat the applicant up and raped her. On 11/05/2020 the applicant reported the crime to the police.   On 21/05/2020 the investigator instituted criminal proceedings against A. on the charges of rape. On 19/05/2021 the District Court found A. guilty as charged and sentenced him to 3.5 years’ imprisonment. The court awarded RUB 50,000 to the applicant in damages. On 16/08/2021 and 31/05/2022 the Zabaykalskiy Regional Court and the 8th Cassation Court of the General Jurisdiction upheld A.’s conviction on appeal.   On 23/09/2020 the investigator opened criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations of domestic violence. The applicant has not been yet informed of the outcome of the proceedings. Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no.   41261/17, § 99, 9   July 2019),   Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, §   118, 14 December 2021),   Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no.   41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),   Shortcomings recognised by national authorities (Tyagunova v. Russia, no.   19433/07, § 71, 31 July 2012) Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in conjunction with Article 3,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 3 - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women