THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DUBININ v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 16334/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dubinin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 March 2020.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms S.N. Bayturina, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected by the police. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Jurisdiction6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention7. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police during a manifestation in Moscow.
8. The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact arise in favour of applicants claiming to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, if they demonstrate that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted when they were under the control of the police or a similar authority. Moreover, in the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct diminishes human dignity and in principle constitutes a violation of the right enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006). The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force by State agents, which resulted in the applicants’ injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 62003/08 and 5 others, § 84, 5 July 2022).
9. Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128‑40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities’ refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the State agents were indicative of the State’s failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention. This is all the more so in cases where the authorities have refused to either carry-out an official inquiry into the applicant’s allegations or officially register the applicant’s complaints (see the appended table).
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. The Court therefore finds this complaint admissible and decides that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, related to the lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings, and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, concerning unlawful detention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, 13 October 2020 and Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant by the police and lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill‑treatment;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Factual information
Medical evidence of ill-treatment
Date of first complaint
Decision issued in response to complaint of ill-treatment
Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP
Appeal decision
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
16334/20
15/03/2020
Yevgeniy Viktorovich DUBININ
1974
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 27/07/2019 the applicant participated in a manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy in Moscow. The police dispersed the crowd and used physical force against the applicant, banging his head against the bus. The applicant was taken to the Dorogomilovo police station, where a medical assistance was called for him and he was subsequently diagnosed with a concussion. On 21/08/2019 the applicant was charged with an administrative offence and was sentences by the Dorogomilovo District Court to a fine of 10,000 RUB. The decision was upheld on appeal on 08/10/2019 by the Moscow City Court.
Excerpt from the applicant’s medical file of 27/09/2019 by the City Clinical Hospital no. 67: examination of neurosurgeon, recommendation to undergo neurological treatment.
Medical certificate of 02/08/2019 by the Medsi Medical Clinic: concussion of the brain without open intracranial injury.
On 07/08/2019 the applicant lodged an ill‑treatment complaint with the Tverskoy investigative department in Moscow. On 07/08/2019 the authorities sent him a letter stating that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected was lawful and there were no grounds for investigation.
On 27/08/2019 the applicant appealed against the letter to the Tverskoy district court in Moscow. On 02/09/2019 the court refused to examine his complaint for the lack of subject matter. On 09/10/2019 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal.
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/07/2019 for compiling an offence report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings -proceedings which ended with the final judgment of the Moscow City Court of 08/10/2019
16,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.