CASE OF ILUPIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ILUPIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 76797/13)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

26 March 2026

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ilupin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,

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 October 2013.

2.  The applicants were represented by Memorial Human Rights Centre, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

4.  The Government and the applicants lodged written observations.

THE FACTS

5.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

6.  Some applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW        Jurisdiction

7.  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 Convention

8.  The first, second and fourth applicants complained principally of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

9.  The Court 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 v. Russia, no. 41261/17, 9 July 2019; and Romanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 58358/14 and 5 others, §§ 75-80, 12 September 2023, the Court already 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 investigation failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.

12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of the first, second and fourth applicants.

   OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

13.  The applicants 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 the light of its well-established case-law (see the appended table).

    REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14.  Some applicants raised a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. In view of the findings under Article 3, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with this complaint.

15.  The applicants also raised complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court has examined them and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  The Court awards 7,000 euros (EUR) to each of the first, second and fourth applicants and EUR 4,000 to the third applicant in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

17.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court also considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,000 to the applicants jointly in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

18.  The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ 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 complaints concerning the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 8 raised by some of the applicants, and declares the remainder of the application inadmissible;     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill‑treatment committed by private individuals in respect of the first, second and fourth applicants;     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  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following

amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

  EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to each of the first, second and fourth applicants and EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to the third applicant, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;  EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to the applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to their representatives’ bank account;  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 applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

 

 

APPENDIX

Application 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

 

Factual information, including medical evidence and domestic proceedings

Specific grievances

Other complaints under well-established case-law

   

76797/13

15/10/2013

(4 applicants)

Sergey Iosifovich ILUPIN

1979

 

Sergey Nikolayevich GUBANOV

1985

 

Pavel Vyacheslavovich SAMBUROV

1986

 

Igor Gennadyevich YASHIN

1980

 

On 22/01/2013 the first, second and fourth applicants took part in a rally to protest against the adoption of the bill introducing administrative liability for propaganda of homosexuality among minors. During the rally they were attacked by a group of Conservative Orthodox Christian activists who had previously announced their intended attack on their website. During the attack the activists shouted homophobic statements. Two of the attackers were arrested by the police.

Mr Ilupin’s medical certificate: bruises on the head and nose.

Mr Gubanov’s medical certificate: broken nose, a bruise on the chest.

Mr Yashin’s medical certificate: broken nose, bruises and abrasions on the lips and behind the right ear.

On the same day the applicants filed a complaint with the Moscow police. The police issued three refusals to open a criminal case (the last one on 08/05/2014). Two of the refusals were quashed by the superior prosecutor, who gave instructions to question witnesses and examine video evidence. The applicants lodged two judicial review complaints, which were discontinued because the decision had been quashed by the prosecutor (the final decision on 01/09/2014 by the Moscow City Court).

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),

 

Failure to address the victims’ allegations (hate crimes, death threats, etc.) (Kreyndlin and Others v. Russia, no. 33470/18, §§ 58-59, 31 January 2023; Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 119, 14 December 2021; and Romanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 58358/14 and 5 others, §§ 78-79, 12 September 2023),

 

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)

Concerning the rally of 22/01/2013 (the first, second and fourth applicants)

 

Art. 3 - inhuman or degrading treatment - the domestic authorities’ failure to comply with their positive obligation to provide adequate protection to the first, second and fourth applicants from ill-treatment by private individuals allegedly motivated by hatred against homosexuals during the public event of 22/01/2013

(see Romanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 58358/14 and 5 others, §§ 70-74, 12 September 2023);

 

Art. 11 (1) - non-compliance with positive obligations in respect of participants in public events - the domestic authorities’ failure to ensure that the rally of 22/01/2013 could take place peacefully by sufficiently constraining homophobic and violent counter-demonstrators (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, §§ 93-100, 12 May 2015; and Berkman v. Russia, no. 46712/15, §§ 50-58, 1 December 2020);

 

Art. 14 - Prohibition of discrimination – in conjunction with Articles 3 and 11: the domestic authorities’ failure to ensure that the public event of 22/01/2013 could take place peacefully by sufficiently constraining homophobic and violent counter-demonstrators (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, §§ 93-100, 12 May 2015; Romanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 58358/14 and 5 others, §§ 70-74, 12 September 2023;

and Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania, no. 19237/16, §§ 105-13, 1 June 2021);

 

Concerning the rally of 19/12/2012 (all applicants)

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report:

Mr Gubanov from 1.15 p.m. on 19/12/2012 until 5.30 p.m. on 20/12/2012;

Mr Ilupin from 1.10 p.m. on 19/12/2012 until 5.50 p.m. on 20/12/2012;

Mr Samburov from 1 p.m. on 19/12/2012 until 5.50 p.m. on 20/12/2012;

Mr Yashin from 1.20 p.m. on 19/12/2012 until 5.45 p.m. on 20/12/2012.

(see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 489- 490, 7 February 2017).

 

Art. 11 (1) - and Art. 14 discriminatory ban on holding LGBT public assemblies - A refusal to approve the rally of 19/12/2012 to protest against the adoption of the bill introducing administrative liability for propaganda of homosexuality among minors. The authorities found that the rally was likely to provoke a negative response, pose potential harm to children, and offend the religious and moral convictions of citizens, as well as their sense of human dignity (see Alekseyev v. Russia, nos. 4916/07 and 2 others, 21 October 2010). Final decision: 18/07/2013 by the Moscow City Court.

 

Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - Dispersal of the rally of 19/12/2012 and the applicants’ arrest and detention until 20/12/2012 (see Berkman v. Russia, no. 46712/15, §§ 59-62, 1 December 2020).

 

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy