THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KULYAMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 19338/20 and 2 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 June 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kulyamina and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 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 torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In application no. 14321/21, the applicant 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 that they or a close relative had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the authorities had failed to ensure an effective and timely investigation of their complaints (for further details see attached table). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.
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, 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 police 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 the cases where the authorities have refused to carry out an official inquiry into the applicants’ allegations (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 these complaints. Having also considered its case-law related to the standing of family members to bring complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of their late relatives (see Dzidzava v. Russia, no. 16363/07, § 47, 20 December 2012, and Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, §§ 105-06, 11 February 2016, for application no. 19338/20), the Court therefore finds these complaints admissible. It further finds that these complaints disclose a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. In application no. 14321/21, 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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Verzilov and Others v. Russia, no. 25276/15, § 101, 29 August 2023.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. Having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, 13 October 2020, and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022), and making its assessment on an equitable basis (see Bouyid, cited above), the Court considers it appropriate to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
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 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, under both its substantive and procedural limbs, in respect of the applicants’ complaints about the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment to which they or a close relative had been subjected and about the lack of an effective investigation into these allegations;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 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 June 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
(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)
No.
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
Information relating to conviction
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
19338/20
08/04/2020
Lyubov Aleksandrovna KULYAMINA
1957
Alferova Larisa Valentinovna
Perm
On 12/05/2018 the applicant’s late son Mr Kulyamin, who had suffered from HIV, was arrested by the police for drug trafficking. The arresting officers subjected him to beatings and kicks on various parts of the body. On 13/08/2019 he was convicted of drug trafficking.
On 15/10/2019 he was transferred from prison to a civilian hospital where he died on 16/10/2019 from complications of HIV and tuberculosis.
On 18 October 2019 this conviction was vacated on appeal by the Perm Regional Court due to Mr Kulyamin’s death.
Medical certificate of 12/05/2018 by the Trauma department of the Medical Unit no.7: dorsopathy [illegible], left ulnar bursitis.
On 13/05/2018 upon the arrival at the remand prison, the applicant’s son was subjected to medical examination, which found the following: contusion of the left arm, bruises on the right thigh and left leg, complaints of back pain.
On 12/05/2018 the medical unit of the remand prison informed the Perm Regional Investigative Committee of the Mr Kulyamin’s traumas as a result of ill-treatment/On 01/07/2018, 29/06/2018 and 29/12/2018 refusals to open a criminal case were issued.
The applicant’s son appealed against the last refusal to the Ordzhonikidze District Court in Perm, which on 28/08/2019 left it without examination as his conviction was not yet finalised/On 17/10/2019 that decision was upheld on appeal by the Perm Regional Court. Meanwhile, Mr Kulyamin died on 16/10/2019.
On 13 August 2019 the Ordzhenikidzevskiy District Court in Perm convicted Mr Kulyamin of aggravated drug trafficking and sentenced him to 17 years and two months of imprisonment.
26,000
14321/21
09/03/2021
David Aleksandrovich FRENKEL
1991
Karacheva Olga Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
The applicant is a journalist of an independent media “Mediazona”. On 30/06/2020 he arrived at a polling station in St Petersburg where voting for the amendments to the Constitution was held. He was dragged by a police officer, who twisted his arm, out of the polling station as he had allegedly encroached upon the voting.
Discharge summary issued on 30/06/2000 by the St Petersburg Emergency Care Research Institute: closed fracture of the lower third of the right humerus with dislocation of the fragments
On 30/06/2020 complaint to the Investigating Committee/On 29/07/2020, 20/10/2020 and 14/12/2000 refusals to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officer were issued/Each refusal was overruled by the investigators’ superiors as unlawful and premature.
The applicant appealed against the refusals before the Dzerzhinskiy District Court in St Petersburg, which on 17/08/2021 dismissed his complaint against the last refusal as the impugned decision had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors and a new inquiry had been ordered.
Art. 10 (1) – Restrictions on the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas - the purpose of the use of force against the applicant was interference with his journalist activity, with his freedom to collect and impart information; unlawful and disproportionate interference (similar to Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, 13 February 2018 and Verzilov and Others v. Russia, no. 25276/15, § 101, 29 August 2023).
26,000
41822/23
15/11/2023
Yekaterina Andreyevna BUSHKOVA
1997
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
On 17/01/2021 the applicant arrived at Vnukovo airport to meet a plane carrying A. Navalnyy, who was returning to Russia after medical treatment in Germany. At 6.30 p.m., police officers grabbed her and dragged her to a police bus. At the entrance to the vehicle, in the presence of at least four witnesses, they pushed her face hard against the handle of the bus, resulting in a blow to the applicant’s face. The applicant was taken to a police station, from where she was hospitalised to Moscow City Hospital no. 1 in the early hours of 18/01/2021.
Medical certificate of 18/01/2021 by Moscow City Hospital no.1: closed craniocerebral trauma, concussion of the brain, subconjunctival haemorrhage of the eye, contusion of soft tissues of the head.
Medical certificate of 18/01/2021 by Moscow Clinical Hospital no.4: Closed craniocerebral trauma, concussion of the brain, subconjunctival haemorrhage of the eye, subcutaneous haematomas of the left knee and left ankle joints.
On 19/01/2021 complaint to the Vnukovo airport police station and on 25/01/2021 complaint to the Moscow Investigative Committee/No response from either body. Then, on 03/02/2023 and then on 15/03/2023 the police issued refusals to open a criminal case stating that the actions of the police officers had been lawful.
On 18/06/2021 the applicant challenged the authorities’ inaction before the Dorogomilovskiy District Court in Moscow / On 25/10/2021 the court dismissed the complaint because it had never been registered/On 16/12/2021 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision.
On 01/04/2022 the applicant further challenged the authorities’ inaction before the Dorogomilovskiy District Court, arguing that the authorities had become aware of the circumstances of her ill-treatment during the previous proceedings/On 14/03/2023 the court dismissed the complaint on the same grounds.
The applicant appealed against both refusals to the Solntsevskiy District Court in Moscow. On 01/06/2023 the court rejected the last complaint as unsubstantiated/On 17/07/2023 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision.
26,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.