CASE OF T.V. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF T.V. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 31323/19 and 4 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 T.V. 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.

3.  As regards application no. 31323/19, the applicant and the Government each lodged written observations. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Equal Rights Trust, Equality Now and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), non-governmental organisations based in London, United Kingdom, which had been given leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3).

THE FACTS

4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5.  The 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

6.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

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 applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

8.  The applicants complained principally of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals, consisting of repeated acts of domestic violence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.

9. 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).

10.  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).

11.  In the leading case of Volodina, cited above, the Court previously found a violation in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case.

12.  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 in response to the allegations of domestic violence failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness (see the appended table).

13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

14.   The 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 above, §§ 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 indicated in the appended table also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Volodina, cited above, §§ 78-91, and 109‑33, concerning the State’s failure to comply with their positive obligations to establish and apply in practice an adequate legal framework punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims; and Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, §§ 63-74, 31 July 2012, concerning the State’s failure to ensure adequate protection of the applicant’s private life).

15.  In view of the above finding, the Court considers that there is no need deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by the applicants under various Convention provisions.

16.  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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(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)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.