CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juin 2025

.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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 June 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no.   84284/17 Sergey Viktorovich MOKHOV against Russia (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 5 June 2025, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia. In the application marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the application 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 application 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 Application raising complaints under Article 3 § 2 of the Convention (ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals) 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 84284/17* 08/12/2017 Sergey Viktorovich MOKHOV 1990   Sergey Viktorovich Badamshin Moscow On 25/11/2016 the applicant was assaulted near his home: a stranger allegedly injected him with an unknown substance, which caused dizziness, heaviness in his legs, and slurred speech. Emergency doctors, as well as a doctor he saw on the next day, found a painful puncture mark but no other injuries or health issues. A urine test also showed no traces of toxic substances or poison. The applicant’s lawyer was able to get footage from surveillance cameras showing the moment of the attack. However, several times (on   24/12/2016, 25/01/2017, 10/03/2017, 10/04/2017, and 30/01/2018), an investigator from the Donskoy district police in Moscow refused to open a criminal investigation, citing the absence of a corpus delicti. These refusals were overturned by the prosecutor, respectively, on 26/12/2016, 09/02/2017, 13/03/2017, 09/06/2017, and 05/02/2018, with orders to continue investigating. Finally, on 15/06/2018 the Simonovsky District Court in Moscow ruled in favour of the applicant, having held that the investigator’s failure to follow the prosecutor’s orders for further investigation was unlawful. It instructed the police to take necessary steps to remedy the alleged defects. 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)