THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60333/10
Yevgeniy Valentinovich SHILOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 June 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 16 September 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Valentinovich Shilov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in the village of Priverkh, the Lebyazhskiy District of the Kirov Region.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr A. Fedorov.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.The events of 7 August 2009
4. According to the applicant, on 7 August 2009 three police officers, O., P. and Sh., approached him in the Mozyndor train station and, after he refused to present his passport, beat him.Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
5. On 7 August 2009 the applicant reported the incident to the police and complained about his alleged ill-treatment by the police officers.
6. On 8 August 2009 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. According to the medical examination act of 12 August 2009, the applicant had multiple contusions and abrasions on his head, face, limbs and body.
7. The applicant subsequently requested access to the inquiry documents collected in respect of his complaint (“the inquiry file”). The investigating authorities dismissed the applicant’s requests and notified him that his allegations of ill-treatment would be examined in his criminal proceedings (see paragraph 11 below).
8. On 27 February 2010 the investigating officer in charge of the applicant’s criminal proceedings transmitted the inquiry file to the Komi Inter-District Transport Investigative Department (Коми МСО на транспорте) for further inquiry.
9. On 8 March 2010 the investigating officer of the abovementioned investigative department refused to open a criminal investigation against police officers P. and Sh. The investigating officer concluded that the police officers had not bypassed their professional duties and their actions had been aimed at suppressing the applicant’s criminal behaviour.The applicant’s trial
10. On 7 August 2009 police officer O. reported the incident to the police alleging that the applicant had used a spray gun against him.
11. On 16 October 2009 the investigating authorities opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of use of violence against a public official.
12. On 5 February 2010 the applicant was charged with the abovementioned criminal offence.
13. On 1 April 2010 the Udorskiy District Court of the Komi Republic convicted the applicant of use of violence against a public official. In the course of the trial the district court established that on 7 August 2009 police officer O. had approached the applicant and had asked for his passport; the applicant had refused to comply with the order and had sprayed gas from a spray gun, causing O. a first-degree chemical burn of his face. The district court did not address the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police officers in its judgment.
14. On 25 May 2010 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against the judgment of 1 April 2010 and upheld the conviction. The cassation court also concluded that the applicant’s complaint about his ill-treatment by police officers P. and Sh. was not subject to examination in his criminal proceedings, and noted that it was not empowered to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations or to supervise the conduct of such criminal investigation.
THE LAW
15. The applicant complained about the excessive force used in the course of his confrontation with the police officers and the lack of effective investigation in this respect. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention which read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
16. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to lodge a complaint under Article 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation against the decision not to open a criminal investigation of 8 March 2010 and, by consequence, had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies.
17. The applicant did not submit any observations in reply to the Government’s preliminary objection.
18. The Court has previously found that a judicial appeal against a decision not to open or discontinue criminal investigation constitutes an effective remedy available in the Russian legal system in respect of such complaints (see Trubnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 49790/99, 14 October 2003; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 54-67, 1 March 2007; and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 91, 24 April 2012). Developing that position, the Court has also ruled that raising the issue of ill‑treatment before a trial court examining charges against an applicant, provided that the courts examine the substance of the relevant allegations, could also in certain circumstances be regarded as an appropriate exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, §§ 25-34, 2 October 2008).
19. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant raised his complaint about his ill-treatment by the police officers both before the investigating authorities and in his own criminal proceedings. The Court further observes that the trial and cassation courts in the applicant’s criminal proceedings refused to examine the substance of his allegations of ill‑treatment (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above). At the same time, the investigating authorities examined the substance of the applicant’s complaint and issued a decision not to open a criminal investigation (see paragraph 9 above). However, there is nothing in the case file to suggest that the applicant has challenged or has attempted to challenge that decision before the courts.
20. It follows, therefore, that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention are inadmissible on account of the applicant’s failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
21. In so far as the applicant refers to Article 13 of the Convention, the Court, having regard to its conclusion concerning Article 3, finds that no separate issue arises under this provision. It finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 July 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Olga ChernishovaDarian Pavli
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy