Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 132
July 2010
Lopata v. Russia - 72250/01
Judgment 13.7.2010 [Section III]
Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of petition
Intimidation and pressurising of applicant by authorities in connection with case before the European Court: violation
Facts – In 2001 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. He applied to the European Court, submitting that he had been subjected to torture and convicted on the basis of a forced confession. In October 2003 the Court communicated his application to the respondent Government. On 6 January 2004 the applicant was visited in prison by a captain from the Federal Service for Execution of Sentences who allegedly tried to pressure him to retract his complaint to the Court and threatened him with reprisals when he refused. On 3 March 2004 the applicant had two further visits from State officials who also questioned him about his application to the Court. The Government provided the Court with the applicant’s written statement dated 3 March 2004 that he had no complaints about officers of the prison administration and the penitentiary system and that he had not been subjected to physical or psychological pressure by penitentiary officers. In 2005 an additional inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment was carried out.
Law – Article 34: The Court, of its own motion, had raised the issue whether the applicant had been subjected to intimidation which had amounted to a hindrance to the effective exercise of his right of individual petition in respect of the events of 6 January 2004. Shortly after the conversation with the captain, the applicant had brought that fact to the Court’s attention through his brother and had subsequently provided the Court with full details. His description was complemented and confirmed by a written statement by a lawyer, who had visited the applicant in the colony. In sum, the applicant had not only informed the Court about the conversation promptly, but also adduced several elements to support his submissions, remaining consistent in his account of the events. The Government had denied that any pressure had been put on the applicant during the conversation with the captain, whose purpose had been to obtain information on his complaints with a view to preparing the Government’s position before the Court. However, they had not furnished any documents, such as a transcript of the conversation, which could have refuted the applicant’s submissions or cast doubt on his description of the course of the conversation. In so far as they had argued that the conversation had been intended to “verify the circumstances prompting the applicant to submit his application”, the Court found it peculiar that there had been a one-year break between the captain’s visit and the investigative steps taken in 2005. In any event, nothing in the related documents allowed the Court to link the domestic inquiry to the applicant’s questioning by the captain. In sum, the Court was not persuaded by the Government’s arguments and was inclined to accept that the impugned conversation had proceeded as described by the applicant. The Government had not commented on the applicant’s submissions concerning the two further visits by State officials or contested their truthfulness. However, they had enclosed the applicant’s written statement of 3 March 2004, which appeared to confirm that on that day the applicant had again been questioned about the alleged ill-treatment. In this respect the Court could not but regard with suspicion a situation where, after the complaint about pressure was communicated to the Government, they had submitted a statement by the same applicant to the effect that he had no complaints. The Court concluded that the applicant could reasonably be considered to have felt intimidated following his conversation with the captain, as well as by his ensuing repeated questioning by State officials, and could have experienced a legitimate fear of reprisals in connection with his application to the Court. Accordingly, he had been subjected to illicit pressure, which had amounted to an undue interference with his right of individual petition.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court also found violations of Article 3 under its procedural aspect and Article 6 § 3 (c) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (unanimously). It found no violation of Article 3 under its substantive aspect (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy