THIRD SECTION
CASE OF F.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 47254/21 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 May 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of F. D. and Others 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 24 April 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
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 applications (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 applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals, including repeated acts of domestic violence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention. Some of the applicants referred to Article 13 of the Convention.
8. The Court reiterates that the issue of domestic violence, which can take various forms – ranging from physical assault to sexual, economic, emotional or verbal abuse – transcends the circumstances of an individual case. It is a general problem which affects, to a varying degree, all member States and which does not always surface since it often takes place within personal relationships or closed circuits and affects different family members, although women make up an overwhelming majority of victims. The particular vulnerability of the victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection have been emphasised in a number of international instruments and the Court’s case‑law (see, among other authorities, Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§71-72, 9 July 2019).
9. The Court further reiterates that the absence of any direct State responsibility for acts of violence that meet the condition of severity such as to engage Article 3 of the Convention does not absolve the State from all obligations under this provision. The obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals. Admittedly, it goes without saying that the obligation cannot be interpreted as requiring the State to guarantee through its legal system that inhuman or degrading treatment is never inflicted by one individual on another or, if it has been, that criminal proceedings should necessarily lead to a particular sanction. What Article 3 does require is that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into the alleged ill-treatment even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals. For the investigation to be regarded as “effective”, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but one of means. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and so on. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention where the effectiveness of the official investigation has been at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time. Consideration has been given to the opening of investigations, delays in taking statements and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see, among other authorities, Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, §§ 98-100, 17 December 2009).
10. In the leading cases of Denis Vasilyev (cited above), Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, 31 July 2012, Volodina (cited above), and Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, 14 December 2021, the Court previously found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
11. 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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigations failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness (see the appended table).
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
13. In the light of this finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (compare, Volodina, cited above, § 102).
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW14. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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, and in particular having regard to the nature of the legal issues raised by the present applications, the Court considers it necessary to stress that it has already had an opportunity to examine the Russian legal framework which does not define domestic violence whether as a separate offence or an aggravating element of other offences and establishes a minimum threshold of gravity of injuries required for launching public prosecution. It has already concluded that such a legal framework fell short of the requirements inherent in the State’s positive obligation to establish and apply effectively a system punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims (see Volodina, cited, §§ 78-91, with further references). The Court also found that the continued failure to adopt legislation to combat domestic violence and the absence of any form of restraining or protection orders clearly demonstrated that the authorities’ actions were not a simple failure or delay in dealing with violence against the applicants, but flowed from their reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness and extent of the problem of domestic violence in Russia and its discriminatory effect on women. By tolerating, for many years, a climate which was conducive to domestic violence, the Russian authorities failed to create conditions for substantive gender equality that would enable women to live free from fear of ill-treatment or attacks on their physical integrity and to benefit from the equal protection of the law (see Volodina, cited above, §§ 109-33). The Court sees no reason to depart from these findings in the present case and therefore concludes that the applicants’ complaints listed in the appended table also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Tyagunova, cited above, §§ 79-80), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill‑treatment committed by private individuals and declares that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;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 the appended table); Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household
(in euros)[1]
47254/21
18/09/2021
F.D.
2002
Kogan Vanessa
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. 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 a 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 the 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 the rape, battery and perjury was pending.
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),
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),
Art. 8 (1) - Private life - In conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention – the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 92, 9 July 2019; Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, §§ 59-74, 31 July 2012)
Art. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender‑based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17,
§§ 125-33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
61267/21
22/11/2021
Lyudmila Alekseyevna POZDEYEVA
1976
Kanayev Valeriy Viktorovich
Diveyevo
The applicant was subjected to repeated beatings and threats by her ex-husband P. on 06/12/2019, 29/05/2021 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. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 3 - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17,
§§ 125-33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
16970/22
22/03/2022
Olesya Nikolayevna KARABANOVA
1975
Wesselink Egbert
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 relieved him from serving 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 relieved 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 a claim in civil proceedings.
On 18//03/2021 the District Court amended the judgment of 06/11/2020, recognised the applicant’s right to have her claims for damages examined 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 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)
12,500
17111/22
22/03/2022
Natasha Beslanovna SADAKIYEVA
1994
Wesselink Egbert
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 had 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 a hospital where she underwent treatment for concussion and bruises on the head and nose.
On 11/20/2021 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 a 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 the domestic violence.
On 10/11/2021 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings. They questioned B. and A. and the applicant’s neighbours without examining the medical documentation or questioning the applicant and a taxi driver who had helped her 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, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‑33, 9 July 2019),
Art. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 125-33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
35206/22
01/07/2022
Maria Andreyevna VYLEGZHANINA
1990
Zakharova Anastasiya
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 on 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)
12,500
39624/22
24/07/2022
Household
Yuliya Mikhaylovna CHERNIGINA
1979
Aleksandr Sergeyevich CHERNIGIN
2011
Frolova Valentina Nikolayevna
Moscow
The applicants (mother and son) complained about domestic violence perpetrated by the first applicant’s former partner Sh. between 09/10/2020 and 10/08/2020 (approximately 17 incidents). Sh. repeatedly used physical violence, threatened and insulted the first applicant, 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 a 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. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women, complaint raised in respect of the first applicant (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 125-33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
47465/22
10/09/2022
Olga Olegovna KOBYLKINA
1984
Kopteyeva Anastasiya Vladimirovna
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 making death threats (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. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender‑based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17,
§§ 125-33, 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, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‑33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
49519/22
29/09/2022
Natalya Shoydonovna SHOYDONOVA
1975
Kopteyeva Anastasiya Vladimirovna
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 May 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 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 yet been 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. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 103-33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.