Published on 22 November 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 78601/17
Igor Petrovich RUDNIKOV
against Russia
lodged on 13 November 2017
communicated on 2 November 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a number of issues. The applicant was a journalist from Kaliningard. The local administration successfully sued him in defamation proceedings for an article about it. After several articles concerning the head of the local investigative committee, General L., a criminal case was initiated against the applicant on the charges of extortion of money from General L. FSB officers allegedly ill-treated the applicant during his arrest and the first fourteen hours of his (unrecorded) detention. The investigating authorities refused to open a criminal case against the concerned FSB officers. The applicant’s flat and his newspaper’s office were searched. Pending the criminal investigation and the trial against him the applicant stayed in custody for about one year and seven months. He was eventually convicted of minor offences (of arbitrary behaviour (“самоуправство”) and failure to notify about possession of a foreign residence permit) and was released.
The application also concerns conditions of transport to and detention in a cage at court hearings and lack of effective remedies in respect of the above grievances.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. (a) Having regard to the injuries found on the applicant after his arrest and the time spent by him in State custody, has the applicant been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, 23 February 2016 and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, 11 October 2016)?
(b) Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant’s injuries were caused (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015)?
(c) Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)?
2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention during the first eighteen hours of his arrest on 1 November 2019? In particular, was his detention recorded as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, 18 September 2014, and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018)?
3. Did the authorities provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s placement into custody as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
4. As regards the search of the applicant’s flat and his newspaper’s office, did it constitute an interference with his rights in breach of the requirements of Article 8 and/or Article 10 of the Convention (see, in the latter respect, Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, 22 April 2021)?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above complaints under Articles 8 and 10, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
6. Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts’ judgments in the defamation proceedings brought by a local administration against the applicant amount to an interference with his right to freedom of expression? If so, was the interference “prescribed by law”? Did it pursue one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? Was it “necessary in a democratic society”? Did the domestic courts consider the following elements: contribution to a debate of public interest; the degree of notoriety of the person affected; the subject of the news report; the prior conduct of the person concerned; the content, form and consequences of the publication; and the way in which the information had been obtained and its veracity (see Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 165, 27 June 2017)? Overall, did the domestic courts give due consideration to the principles and criteria as laid down by the Court’s case-law for balancing the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression (see, among others, Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 56, 2 June 2020)?
7. Were the conditions of the applicant’s transport to and from court hearings compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 123-42, 9 April 2019)?
8. Was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017)?
9. Did the applicant have effective domestic remedies in respect of the complaints about transport and placement into metal cage, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?