THIRD SECTION
CASE OF LYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 12881/21 and 4 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 February 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lyanov 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 16 January 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. 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 and Pivkina and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 2134/23 and 6 others, §§ 71-81, 6 June 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention7. The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation into their allegations of ill‑treatment. 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 was 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 applicants’ allegations or officially register the applicants’ 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 these complaints. The Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and decides that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. The applicant in application no. 12881/21 submitted a complaint under Article 5 of the Convention which also raised issues under the Convention, in the light of the well‑established case-law of the Court (see the attached table). This complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in S.T. and Y.B. v. Russia, no. 40125/20, § 92, 19 October 2021.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. The applicants in applications nos. 17543/22 and 32436/23 also submitted additional complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it has already determined the main legal issues in those applications (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above) and that accordingly there is no need to examine these complaints separately (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, for similar situations, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021, 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, § 138) the Court considers it appropriate 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 facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about ill‑treatment of the applicants by State authorities and lack of an effective investigation into the events, and a complaint raised under Article 5 of the Convention under the well-established case-law of the Court by the applicant in application no. 12881/21, admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants under Article 13 of the Convention;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ill-treatment of the applicants and lack of an effective investigation into these complaints;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention as regards the complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) by the applicant in application no. 12881/21; 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 6 February 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
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
12881/21
01/03/2021
Rustam Daudovich LYANOV
1984
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
About midnight on 11/11/2018 the applicant was abducted from home by a group of six unidentified men in balaclavas and black police uniform to make him give a public apology for the critic by his uncle, who resided in Europe, of the authorities of the Ingushetia Republic. The abductors, who told the applicant that they were taking him to the Malgobek police station, blindfolded the applicant, took him in a car to a building where under the threats of physical violence they made him read a text with the apology for his uncle’s actions. The apology was recorded on video and subsequently disseminated on the internet. At about 2 a.m. on 12/11/2018 the applicant was taken outside, driven to a gas station and released.
No medical documents were submitted.
On 12/11/2018 the applicant complained to the Malgobek investigative committee/On 12/12/2018 the investigators refused to open a criminal case as the abductors had released the applicant in a few hours after the capture/between 2018 and 2020 five more refusals were issued, all were subsequently overruled by the investigators’ superiors for the inquiry’s deficiencies and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps.
Between 05/02/2019 and 11/03/2020 the applicant appealed against at least two refusals to the Malgobek Town Court, which refused to examine his complaints as the impugned decisions had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors/ On 07/07/2020 the court yet again refused to examine the complaint for the same reasons/ On 01/09/2020 Supreme Court of Ingushetia upheld this last decision on appeal.
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The applicant complains that he was subjected to unlawful detention by the police officers who had abducted him from home, taken him to a police station where under the threat of physical violence they had forced him to make the public apology.
8,500
17543/22
16/03/2022
Roman Vasillyevich BACHURIN
1991
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
On 01/06/2021 the applicant was arrested by the FSB officers from the Border Control Service in the Rostov Region, who handcuffed him and hit him several times.
Forensic examination report of 10/06/2021 by the Forensics Bureau no. 111 in Rostov-on-Don: abrasion in the frontal area as a result of an impact by a blunt hard object, possibly caused on 01/06/2021 by blows with booted feet.
On 02/06/2021 the applicant lodged a complaint with the investigative unit no. 314 of the Military Investigative Committee / on 11/06/2021 the investigators refused to open a criminal case as the use of the physical force was justified.
On 30/11/2021 the Rostov-on-Don Garrison Court dismissed the appeal against the refusal as unsubstantiated / upheld on 11/02/2022 by the Southern Military Circuit Court.
6,500
30462/23
27/07/2023
Roman Alekseyevich BALYASIN
1981
At 1 a.m. on 30/07/2022 the applicant was detained in the forest near Zheleznogorsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region by two police officers and two officers of the Federal Security Service. The officers subjected him to repeated beatings in the head and the torso for damaging official political sign in support of war in Ukraine. Then he was taken to the Zheleznogorsk town investigative department, where his photo with the traces of beatings was taken. A criminal case was opened against him.
Forensic examination report no. 379 of 01/08/2022 by the Zheleznogorsk clinical hospital no. 51: abrasion on the left supraorbital arch, haemorrhage on the forehead, left cheekbone, right eyelid, upper lip with chipped teeth on the upper and lower jaws, bruising on the right thigh and right hand. These injuries were sustained on 30/07/2022.
On 18/08/2022 the applicant complained of ill-treatment to the law-enforcement authorities:
On 06/10/2022 refusal to open a criminal case against the two police officers as the use of force against the applicant was justified. The investigators did not question the implicated officers and based their conclusion on their statements given in the criminal case opened against the applicant.
On 05/10/2022 refusal by military investigators to open a criminal case against the two FSB officers as the use of force against the applicant was justified and necessitated by his resistance. The investigators did not question the implicated officers and based their conclusion on their statements given in the criminal case opened against the applicant.
The applicant appealed against the refusal of 06/10/2022 to the Zheleznogorsk Town Court/On 18/11/2022 the court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated/On 22/12/2022 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld that decision.
The applicant appealed against the refusal of 05/10/2022 to the Krasnoyarsk Military Garrison Court/On 23/01/2023 the court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated/On 06/04/2023 the Second Eastern Military Circuit Court upheld that decision.
26,000
32436/23
04/08/2023
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna KOTLYAR
1997
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
On 13/03/2022 in Vladivostok the applicant participated in a demonstration against the war in Ukraine during which she was subjected to punches by the police. Then she was taken to police station no.4 and subjected to further beatings. From there on the same date she was hospitalised by an ambulance to clinical hospital no.2.
Extract no.4112 of 17/03/2022 from the applicant’s medical record by the Vladivostok clinical hospital no.2: brain concussion, contusion of soft tissue of the head.
On 16/03/2022 ill-treatment complaint lodged with the investigative committee of the Primorskiy Region. No reply followed/
On 23/07/2022 the applicant received the refusal to open a criminal case of 22/04/2022 for the lack of corpus delicti: no ill-treatment of the applicant had taken place. The medical documents and the register of detainees at the police station had not been requested by the investigators/
On 07/12/2022 new refusal to open a criminal case was issued on the same grounds/On 13/04/2023 new refusal to open a criminal case was issued on the same grounds.
On 17/05/2022 the applicant contested the authorities’ inaction before the Frunzenskiy District Court in Vladivostok (the District Court)/On 26/05/2022 the court refused to examine the complaint for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decision amenable to appeal had been issued/
On 10/09/2022 the applicant appealed against the refusal of 22/04/2022 to the District Court/On 29/11/2022 the court partially granted the appeal as the inquiry into the applicant’s allegations had been incomplete/
On 29/01/2023 the applicant received the refusal of 07/12/2022 and appealed against it to the District Court/On 20/03/2023 the court again partially granted the appeal as the inquiry into the applicant’s allegations had been incomplete and a new inquiry was ordered.
16,000
32897/23
24/04/2023
Andrey Aleksandrovich KALIKH
1972
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
On 27/02/2022 in St Petersburg the applicant participated in a demonstration against the war in Ukraine during which police officers punched and kicked him in the buttocks and legs. Then they pushed him on the ground and dragged him by his left hand to the police bus. The incident was filmed on video. Then the applicant was taken to police station no.10, from where on the same day he was hospitalised by an ambulance to the Dzhanelidze Medical Emergency Institute for an emergency surgery.
Extract no. 1059593/12626 of 27/02/2022 from the applicant’s medical record by the Dzhanelidze Medical Emergency Institute: dislocation of the left humerus. Surgery on 27/02/2022- closed repositioning of the dislocation of the humerus with immobilisation.
On 07/03/2022 ill-treatment complaint lodged with the investigative committee of the Tsentralniy District in St Petersburg/On 07/04/2022 the applicant was informed that the complaint had been forwarded to the internal security service of St Petersburg police/On 16/02/2022, in reply to the applicant’s request for information, he was informed that no decision in respect of his complaint has been taken.
On 11/04/2022 the applicant contested the authorities’ inaction before the Smolninskiy District Court in St Petersburg, which forwarded it to the Dzerzhinsky District Court (the District Court)/On 29/04/2022 the latter refused to examine the complaint for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decision amenable to appeal had been issued/The applicant appealed to the St Petersburg City Court (the City Court), which on 23/06/2022 overruled that decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination/On 29/09/2022 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint for the applicant’s failure to specify the identities of the police officers involved in the incident/The applicant received that decision on 13/10/2022 and on 18/10/2022 he appealed against it to the City Court/On 17/01/2023 the court upheld the decision of 29/09/2022.
16,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.