THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 17161/11 and 17726/11
Eduard Mayramovich ZASSETY against Russia
and Valeriy Mikhaylovich DONTSOV against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 April 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 17161/11 and 17726/11) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, (“the applicants”) whose details are listed in the appended table;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicants alleged that in 2007 and 2009 they had been subjected to ill-treatment in the police custody.
2. Mr Zassety (application no. 17161/11) was allegedly subjected to ill‑treatment during his arrest on 14 March 2009. On 17 July 2009 the applicant complained about the ill-treatment to the investigator, who on 2 August 2009 refused to institute criminal proceedings. Mr Zassety appealed against this refusal on 27 December 2011 to the Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok. The applicant lodged his complaint with the Court on 31 January 2011.
3. Mr Dontsov (application no. 17726/11) was apprehended by the police on 23 July 2007 upon suspicion of committing a murder. On 26 July 2007 the applicant was brought to the Kstovo Town Court for the hearing concerning his pre-trial detention, where he complained about his ill-treatment for the first time. An investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on multiple occasions, all of these refusals were later annulled by a supervising authority. By judgment of 17 July 2008, as upheld on appeal on 9 September 2008, the Kstovo Town Court convicted Mr Dontsov of murder.
4. On 22 May 2008 an investigator issued another refusal to institute criminal proceedings, which Mr Dontsov challenged in a court. By a decision of 22 August 2008, as upheld on appeal on 10 October 2008, Kstovo Town Court refused to consider the complaint on merits, due to the fact that by the time the applicant had already been convicted. Between 2007 and 2010 the investigating authorities issued at least nine decisions refusing the institution of criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaint, which were quashed by supervising officers, and followed by additional rounds of the pre-investigation inquiry.
5. Relying on Articles 3 and 13, the applicants complained about their ill‑treatment by State officials and the authorities failure to conduct an effective domestic investigation in this connection.
6. The Government argued that Mr Zassety failed to exhaust all the available domestic remedies before he lodged his complaint with the Court, as he did not appeal against the latest refusal to institute criminal proceedings. As regards Mr Dontsov, the Government claimed that he should have become aware of ineffectiveness of the investigation on 10 October 2008, after his complaint was refused in domestic courts.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
8. At the outset the Court recalls that in cases concerning the investigation into ill‑treatment, the Court has held that the applicants are expected to take steps to keep track of an investigation’s progress, or lack thereof, and to lodge their applications with due expedition as soon as they become aware or should have become aware that the investigation is not effective (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 264, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and M.B. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 24488/13, 16 June 2015).
9. The Court observes that Mr Zassety had allegedly been subjected to ill‑treatment in 2009 and received an investigator’s decision refusing the institution of criminal proceedings in this respect on 2 August 2009. Nothing explains two-years period of inaction in lodging an appeal against the above decision, and Mr Zassety did not put forward any explanation as to the origin of that delay (see Raush v. Russia (dec.), no. 17767/06, § 59, 22 March 2016). The Court concludes, accordingly, that Mr Zassety failed to act with due expedition and rejects the case as having been lodged out of time.
10. As regards Mr Dontsov, the Court notes that after his conviction in 2008 and the domestic court’s decision of 10 October 2008, which indicated the applicant’s conviction as a reason for inability to pursue the judicial remedy, Mr Dontsov should have become aware that no other meaningful steps could be taken in respect of the investigation (see, for similar reasoning, Petrović and Gajić v. Serbia (dec.), no. 36470/06, § 31, 17 March 2015). In so far as Mr Dontsov tried to further pursue the proceedings, the Court is convinced that the applicant should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the investigation well before he lodged the application with the Court. Considering that the applicant complained to the domestic courts in 2008, and he lodged his complaint with the Court only on 5 March 2011, the present application had been lodged out of time.
11. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged ill‑treatment and lack of adequate investigation into it should be rejected for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
12. The applicants also raised other complaints under various Convention provisions. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2022.
Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
17161/11
Zassety v. Russia
31/01/2011
Eduard Mayramovich ZASSETY
1981
Vladikavkaz
Russian
Natalya Aleksandrovna KAZANTSEVA
2.
17726/11
Dontsov v. Russia
05/03/2011
Valeriy Mikhaylovich DONTSOV
1957
Opalikha
Russian
Igor Aleksandrovich KALYAPIN