Communicated on 25 November 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 9720/11
Tatyana Mikhaylovna GORYUNOVA
against Russia
lodged on 11 January 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Tatyana Mikhaylovna Goryunova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in St Petersburg. She is represented before the Court by Ms Tatyana Kovrigina, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. From 1992 until 2001 the applicant was married to Mr U. The son Ivan was born of their marriage. They lived in two rooms in employer‑provided communal housing. In 2007, the housing estate was transferred into State ownership and converted into social housing.
4. Mr U. began physically abusing the applicant in 1997. He drank heavily and cheated on her. In 1999 he went blind because of untreated syphilis and was assigned the highest-category disability. In 2001 the applicant divorced him but, lacking alternative accommodation options, they went on living under the same roof. Mr U. continued to abuse her, calling her names, mocking her ethnic origin, punching and choking her.
5. In May and October 2006, January 2007, January and May 2008, and March, April, July, October and December 2009 the applicant reported to the police violent assaults against her. Each time the police refused to open a criminal case and advised her to start private prosecution proceedings against Mr U.
6. On 21 October 2006 Mr U. attempted to choke the thirteen-year-old Ivan and hit him on the head. The applicant lodged a private prosecution claim against Mr U. On 11 December 2007 a justice of the peace found him guilty of assault on his minor son and fined him 2,500 Russian roubles (70 euros). On 20 January 2008 Mr U. beat Ivan with his white cane. The police declined to institute a criminal case but the prosecutor asked the court to terminate Mr U.’s parental authority over Ivan. On 27 March 2008 a district court granted the application.
7. In December 2009 the applicant filed a claim for eviction of Mr U. with the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court in St Petersburg. She referred to his history of violence against her and their son, his dependence on alcohol and propensity to verbal abuse and immoral conduct. She relied on the provision of the Housing Code which allowed former parents who had been stripped of the parental authority to be evicted from the premises in which the children lived (section 91(2)).
8. On 15 February and 23 April 2010 the St Petersburg shelter for women, where the applicant had occasionally found refuge in the previous years, and the Children’s Ombudsman in St Petersburg filed briefs in support of the eviction claim. The prosecutor and a representative of the guardianship authority objected to the eviction, considering that Mr U. should be given a warning, having regard to the fact of his disability.
9. On 20 May 2010 the District Court rejected the claim. On the basis of statements by witnesses, it established that Mr U. was a heavy user of alcohol who did not respect night-time quiet hours. His conduct thus breached the rights and lawful interests of the applicant and her son. Upon reviewing the medical evidence of assaults, the applicant’s reports to the police and the decisions declining institution of criminal proceedings, the court noted that, following Mr U.’s conviction in November 2007, no new criminal cases against him had been instituted and no new convictions had been pronounced. In the absence of final criminal convictions, medical evidence and reports to the police were insufficient, on their own, to establish that Mr U. had assaulted the applicant or her son, since he disputed the facts. The court further accepted that ongoing conflicts in the family had impacted negatively on Ivan’s development. It pointed out however that the applicant had not attempted to send him away to a boarding school with the aim of protecting him against further assaults from Mr U. The court concluded that the eviction was a measure of last resort and that a warning would be sufficient in the circumstances of the case because Mr U. was a blind man in the highest disability category. On 12 July 2010 the St Petersburg City Court endorsed that judgment on appeal.
10. On 2 September 2010 and 13 January 2011 Mr U., in a drunken state, verbally assaulted the applicant, wielding a screwdriver in a menacing way. The applicant asked the town prosecutor and the internal security department of the town police to inquire why the district police had failed to take any measures to enforce the court’s warning. Her applications were forwarded to the district police which acknowledged that the operative inspector’s “preventative work” with Mr U. had been “inadequate”. On 24 January 2011 the investigator with the Krasnogvardeyskiy district police declined to open criminal proceedings on the grounds that Mr U., contacted on the phone, had denied brandishing the screwdriver and that the applicant’s allegations had not been confirmed.
11. In February 2011, the Children’s Ombudsman intervened on behalf of Ivan before the Krasnogvardeyskiy District administration. The housing authority was required to sign a lease with the applicant as the sole tenant.
12. On 5 March 2011 Mr U. moved out.
13. On 30 April 2013 the applicant and the housing authority signed a new lease.
COMPLAINTS
14. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to protect her and her son from repeated acts of domestic violence perpetrated by Mr U. and to ensure the effective enjoyment of their right to respect for their family life and home.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. As regards the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in connection with the applicant’s ill-treatment by Mr U., did the Russian authorities discharge their obligation to protect her against that violence? In particular,
(a) Did the Russian State discharge the obligation to establish and apply effectively a legislative framework for punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims?
(b) Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to take the reasonable measures that might have been expected of them in the circumstances in order to avert a real and immediate risk of ill-treatment, of which the authorities knew or should have known?
(c) Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to conduct an effective investigation into all instances of ill-treatment which had been reported to them and to bring the perpetrator to account?
2. As regards the findings of Russian courts in the eviction proceedings and the absence of a legal mechanism requiring the offender to leave the shared residence and to abstain from approaching or contacting the victim, did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to secure the effective enjoyment by the applicant of her right to respect for home and private life under Article 8 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy