THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52656/11
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich MEKHONOSHIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 July 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 July 2011,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Mekhonoshin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1992 and lives in the Yusva District, the Perm Region.
The Government were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr A. Fedorov.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.Events of 15 August 2010
Early in the morning of 15 August 2010 the applicant, who drove his brother’s car, was requested to stop for a routine check by the police. He ignored the request and attempted to escape. Following a hot pursuit, the police eventually blocked the applicant’s car, but he refused to open the doors and leave the vehicle. After a few warnings the officers forced the driver’s door open and, despite his active resistance, extracted the applicant from the vehicle by force, immobilised him, put him on the ground and handcuffed him. During the subsequent medical examination, the applicant was diagnosed as being in the state of alcohol intoxication.
The applicant was then brought to the police station, accused of committing an administrative offence of driving under the influence and released.
On the same day the officers involved in the events filed reports regarding the circumstances of the arrest.Administrative proceedings for driving under the influence
By a judgment of the Court of Judicial District no. 135 of the Yusvinskiy Municipal District of the Perm Region the applicant was found liable of an administrative offence of driving under the influence and received a punishment of administrative arrest of one day. In the judgment the court examined the statements of witnesses and established as facts the above circumstances of the events of 15 August 2010, including the applicant’s attempt to escape and his active resistance to the arrest.
The judgment was upheld on appeal on 28 September 2010 by the Yusvinskiy District Court of the Perm Region and on 9 February 2011 by the Perm Regional Court. In its judgment of 28 September 2010 the Yusvinskiy District Court mentioned that the applicant had been arrested between 4.40 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and took this time into account as part of the administrative arrest.Criminal complaint against the police officers
It appears that after the events of 15 August 2010 the applicant sought medical assistance from a local hospital in connection with various injuries received as a result of the arrest. In a medical certificate dated 18 August 2010 a doctor confirmed that the applicant had had scratches on his cheeks, neck, front, elbows and bruises on his chest and back. The doctor also stated that the applicant may have had a brain contusion, that the injuries represented a “light” harm to the applicant’s health and may have resulted from impacts of blunt objects such as “arms of third persons” or as “a result of a fall”.
The applicant tried to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers involved in the operation.
By decision of 6 September 2010 an investigator refused the applicant’s complaint for the lack of evidence of any crime. The investigator identified and examined the witnesses of the events at issue and, having reconstructed the course of the events, concluded that the applicant, whilst being drunk, had actively resisted the lawful orders of the police by refusing to stop the car, to open its doors and to step outside. In view of the danger posed by the applicant’s driving, the police had to apply physical force to arrest him.
The decision of 6 September 2010 was reviewed and upheld by the domestic courts. On 18 February 2011 the Yusvinskiy District Court heard both the investigator and the applicant and, having examined the case materials, confirmed the investigator’s conclusions. The decision of 18 February 2011 was upheld by the Perm Regional Court on appeal on 13 April 2011.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that the police had used excessive force against him and that his arrest and subsequent detention were arbitrary and unlawful.
THE LAWArticle 3 of the Convention
The applicant insisted that the police used excessive force on 15 August 2010 and disagreed with the conclusions of the authorities. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The Government insisted that the actions of the police had been lawful and proportionate, especially in view of the applicant’s active resistance. They also considered that the domestic courts made a good and reliable assessment of the facts of the case.
The applicant disagreed, arguing that the domestic authorities erred in the assessment of the circumstances of the case.
The Court recalls that in cases involving the use of force during the arrest its task is to review whether the force used was strictly necessary and proportionate in view of the circumstances of the case (see Petyo Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 75022/01, §§ 53-57, 22 January 2009, and Berliński v. Poland, nos. 27715/95 and 30209/96, § 64, 20 June 2002). In order to answer this question, the Court has to examine the applicant’s injuries and the circumstances in which they were inflicted (see R.L. and M.-J.D. v. France, no. 44568/98, § 68, 19 May 2004). Also, it falls upon the Government to bring the evidence confirming that the use of force was both proportionate and necessary (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 72‑76, ECHR 2000‑XII).
Turning to the circumstances of the case, the Court observes that it is not in dispute between the parties that the applicant’s arrest took place following his refusal to stop the car and, after the car had been blocked, to step out of it. The Court finds nothing in the case-file or in the applicant’s submissions which could enable to question the findings of the investigation that the applicant was drunk at the time, that he represented the danger to the public by driving his car while being drunk and that he actively resisted the efforts of the police to stop the car and arrest him. In view of the character and location of the applicant’s injuries, there is likewise no reason to doubt the assessment of the domestic authorities which established that the police had had to extract the applicant from the car against his will and immobilize him by putting him on the ground and handcuffing him. Overall, the Court concludes that, whilst the applicant admittedly suffered some light injuries as a result of the incident of 15 August 2010, the use of force against him cannot be held to have been excessive.
In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 § 3(a) of the Convention.Article 5 of the Convention
The Court notes that there is no indication in the case-file or the applicant’s submissions that either the applicant’s arrest or his subsequent detention for four hours and fifty minutes were irregular or unlawful, as the applicant never argued against the need to have him brought to a hospital to confirm that he was under the influence and for his subsequent transfer to the police station to record the events (see, by contrast, Berkman v. Russia, no. 46712/15, §§ 35-38, 1 December 2020) and the domestic courts acknowledged that the applicant had been apprehended during this time and expressly took account of this period in ordering the applicant’s administrative arrest.
In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 of the Convention should also be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 § 3(a) of the Convention.Conclusion
The applicant’s complaints must therefore be declared inadmissible.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 29 July 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Olga ChernishovaDarian Pavli
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy