Communicated on 9 December 2020
Published on 11 January 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 40962/20
Asya Davidovna MOVSISYAN
against Russia
lodged on 17 September 2020
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Asya Davidovna Movsisyan, is a Russian national, who was born in 1985 and lives in the Moscow Region. She is represented before the Court by Ms M. Nemova, a lawyer practising in the Moscow Region.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. In 2004 the applicant began living with Mr A. They did not register their marriage. They had two children, a boy was born in 2006 and a girl in 2011. A. frequently abused the applicant, verbally and physically, but she did not seek help for fear that the violence would escalate.
4. In February 2018 the applicant decided to leave A. She took the children and went to St Petersburg. A. tracked her down and threatened her. In March 2018 she returned to a village in the Moscow Region.
5. On 22 October 2018 A. went to the applicant’s house and started banging on the door, telling her to open it and threatening her with violence. The applicant reported the incident to the police. Two days later a district inspector from the Malakhovskoe police station in the Moscow Region issued a decision not to investigate. Having talked to A. who denied threatening the applicant, he concluded that no prosecutable offence had been committed.
6. At 11.30 p.m. on 3 November 2018 A. accosted the applicant on her way home from the train station. He threatened her and hit her on the back of the head. On 12 November 2018 the Malakhovskoe police refused the applicant’s request for an investigation. They concluded that no offence had been committed because a single blow did not amount to “battery”.
7. At 6 p.m. on 18 November 2018 the applicant and her daughter were on their way home. A. met them near the house, hit the applicant twice on the head and painfully squeezed her arm. That happened in front of a neighbour and a friend of A. The applicant had her injuries recorded in a trauma unit and complained to the police. On 27 November 2018 the Malakhovskoe district inspector refused to investigate. He stated that it was impossible to interview A. because his phone was turned off and that time constraints did not allow him to commission a medical assessment of the injuries or identify witnesses. He concluded that no offence had been committed.
8. On 2 January 2019 A. again banged on the applicant’s door, verbally abused her and threatened to kill her. Fearing for her life, she called the police. On 10 January 2019 the Malakhovskoe police refused to investigate the incident on the grounds that no offence had been committed. They stated that they could not reach A. because his phone was disconnected.
9. At 8 a.m. on 14 February 2019 A. ambushed the applicant as she was leaving her house. He told her to give him her phone because he wanted “to check who she was texting”. She refused. He grabbed her arm and hit her on the head several times. When she fell, he took the phone out of her purse and walked away. On 22 February 2019 the Malakhovskoe police refused to institute criminal proceedings, maintaining that no offence had been committed. Based on A.’s version of events, they concluded that he had not intended to steal the phone and had planned “to return it after checking”, while time constraints prevented them from assessing the severity of the applicant’s injuries.
10. On 12 April 2019 A. met the applicant on her way home from the station. He hit her several times on the head and arms. He threatened to kidnap her, kill her and “cut her into pieces”. The applicant made a complaint but the police refused to investigate, stating they could not reach A. on the phone.
11. At 10 p.m. on 23 August 2019 the applicant received threatening texts from A. She got scared and asked a young man at the station to accompany her home. A. approached them, hit the applicant on the head and started a fight with the man, while the applicant ran away and called the police. The police refused to investigate the incident, citing A.’s claims that he wanted “to make peace with the applicant and stop his family from breaking up”.
12. The applicant complained to the supervising prosecutor of Lyubertsy that the police had invariably failed to investigate the violence perpetrated by A. On 2 and 13 September 2019 a deputy town prosecutor set aside all refusals to investigate and directed the police to carry out a new assessment of the applicant’s complaints. On 24 October 2019 the district inspector of the Malakhovskoe police station issued a series of new decisions refusing to investigate, as there was no offence. All decisions contained identical reasoning that the inspector could not find witnesses or interview A. who declined an invitation to appear at the police station, claiming that his freight business was keeping him very busy. The decisions were approved by the station chief.
13. At 10.30 p.m. on 28 September 2019 A. met the applicant at the train station and showed her a folding knife in a menacing way. She ran to the nearest shop for safety, with A. following in her footsteps. The saleswoman called the security guards who restrained A. until the police arrived. On 6 October 2019 the police concluded that there was no offence to investigate because A. denied threatening the applicant with a knife and because witnesses could not be identified.
14. At 9.30 p.m. on 20 October 2019 A. started following the applicant from her office in Moscow. He abused her verbally, insulted her, threatened to kill her and hit her on the head. A man and a woman stepped up in her defence and called the police. On 23 October 2019 a district inspector of the Veshnyaki police station in Moscow refused to investigate. He found that no offence was committed because no one had been injured.
15. On 17 February 2020, as the applicant was about to leave the train station for her home, A. got out of his car and blocked her way. She told him to stay away from her. A. punched her on the head and insulted her. The applicant called for help and tried to stop the passing cars. She got into a taxi to go to the police but A. blocked the road with his car, threw himself on the windshield and slapped the taxi driver with his right hand through the open window. The applicant switched taxis. A. followed them in his car and tried to cut them off. The taxi driver did not stop and brought the applicant to the Tomilino police station where she filed a complaint. On 26 February 2020 the Malakhovskoe police refused to investigate the matter on the grounds that time constraints prevented them from locating witnesses to the incident.
16. On 5 March 2020 the applicant asked the Malakhovskoe police to institute proceedings against A. on the charge of “tormenting”, an offence under Article 117 of the Criminal Code. She described the recent acts of violence, listed witnesses to many incidents and asked for measures of the State protection against the recurrent violence. On 13 March 2020 the police refused her request for an investigation, claiming that they could not secure the examination of A. who had a busy work schedule. On the following day they also rejected her request for protective measures. She did not qualify for the protection because it could be granted only to participants in criminal proceedings, while no such proceedings had been instituted in her case. On 27 March 2020 counsel for the applicant challenged the refusal to apply protective measures before the supervising prosecutor of Lyubertsy. Having received no response from the prosecutor, on 9 September 2020 counsel reiterated her request.
17. In April 2020 A. sent the threatening texts to the applicant in Armenian, “Your days are coming up. Do not think that the children are safe from me” and “I will destroy you and your suitors”. On 7 May 2020 she submitted a certified Russian translation to the police and asked them to check the messages from A.’s number. By letter of 5 June 2020, the applicant was informed that her complaints would be considered.
18. Counsel for the applicant also applied for a judicial review of the police’s failure to investigate. On 16 July 2020 the Lyubertsy Town Court in the Moscow Region declared her application inadmissible, as it had transpired that on 12 April 2020 the supervising prosecutor of Lyubertsy had already set aside the refusal to investigate dated 13 March 2020. A copy of the prosecutor’s decision had not been communicated to the applicant.
19. On 22 August 2020 the Malakhovskoe police again refused to investigate the offence of “tormenting”. On 1 September 2020 the supervising prosecutor annulled the refusal and directed the head of the police station, within thirty days, to locate and interview A., commission a medical assessment of the applicant’s injuries, identify witnesses who may have heard threats of death or injury, and carry out other necessary measures.
20. On 9 September 2020 the Lyubertsy Town Court, on an application from the applicant’s counsel, acknowledged that the district inspector with the Malakhovskoe police station had unlawfully failed to investigate the applicant’s complaints.
21. On 17 September 2020 the authority for the protection of minors (комиссия по делам несовершеннолетних) summoned the applicant to explain why she went home late instead of taking care of children and why she complained so much to the police. The authority’s inspector visited their home to check the living conditions of the children. The applicant does not have information about the outcome of the inquiry.
COMPLAINTS
22. The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the Russian authorities failed to establish a legal framework capable of protecting her against recurrent acts of violence and conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment inflicted by her former partner.
23. The applicant also complains under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, that she was a victim of discrimination on account of her sex. The police refused to investigate the ill-treatment attaching decisive weight to her former partner’s denials of her complaints.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. The Government are requested to inform the Court of the current status of the investigation into the charge of “tormenting”.
2. As regards the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in connection with the ill-treatment of the applicant by her former partner, did the Russian authorities discharge their obligation to protect her against the 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 further risk of ill-treatment after the applicant had reported the initial assault? Did the Russian authorities design and implement a strategy for risk assessment and management of domestic violence?
(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?
3. As regards the alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, did the applicant establish that she was the victim of structural bias or individual prejudice on account of her sex (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 196, ECHR 2009, and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 115-33, 9 July 2019)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy