CASE OF KSENZ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 45044/06 and 5 others - see appended list)
12 December 2017
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ksenz and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Georgios A. Serghides,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 October and 21 November 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned date:
1. The case originated in six applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Russian nationals on various dates, as indicated in the appended table.
2. The applicants’ representatives are listed in the appended table. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been arrested by the police and subjected to physical violence, and that no effective investigation into their complaints had been carried out.
4. On 5 December 2012 the complaints concerning the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment by the police were communicated to the Government.
5. On 17 October 2017 Mr Ivanov’s legal representative informed the Court that Mr Ivanov had died on 16 June 2014, and that his widow and mother of their two minor children, Ms Larisa Ivanova, had stated that she would like Mr Ivanov’s case to proceed.
A. Mr Ksenz’s application
6. The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Pskov.
7. At about 2 a.m. on 17 August 2005 the applicant was travelling in a car with B. - who was driving - M. and T. Their car was stopped by the police. Police Officers F. and K. asked for their ID cards. The applicant, who did not have his ID card on him, was taken to Zavelichenskiy police station in Pskov.
8. The applicant described events at the police station as follows. F. and K. had demanded that he stand facing a wall, hands raised, and had searched him. They had allegedly insulted him verbally and physically. In particular, they had punched him repeatedly in the face and the lumbar region and had tried to knock him down.
9. They then took him to the Pskov regional addiction-treatment clinic. When coming out of the police station they were approached by B., M., T. and I., the applicant’s brother. According to statements by B. and I., the applicant was depressed, his sweater was dirty and the bridge of his nose was red. I. also saw injuries on the applicant’s torso when he asked the applicant to lift his sweater.
10. At 2.56 a.m. a doctor at the addiction-treatment clinic carried out a breath test and tested his coordination. She stated in a record of “medical examination for establishment of alcohol consumption and state of inebriation” that the applicant’s examination had been initiated by Officer K. in connection with an administrative offence, and that the applicant had consumed alcohol but had revealed no signs of inebriation. She noted in the part of the record concerning the tested person’s “appearance” that the applicant had no injuries, and in the part concerning “vegetative-vascular reactions” that his face was “hyperemic”.
11. According to the applicant, the doctor did not ask him to undress and did not examine his body. Nor was he asked to sign the record of his examination or given its copy.
12. After the test the applicant was taken back to the police station. At the request of a police officer he signed a statement that at about 1 a.m. on 17 August 2005, when passing by a bus stop in B.’s car, he had called out through an open window to girls at the bus stop inviting them for a drive in the car. After that a police car had followed them and B. had stopped the car. The police officers had ordered him to proceed with them to the police station “for the reason that he had used foul language”.
13. At about 5 a.m. he was released.
14. At 10 a.m. the applicant was examined at his request by a forensic-medical expert at the Pskov Regional Forensic-Medical Bureau. The applicant explained that he had been punched and kicked by two police officers at about 2 a.m. that day. According to the medical report, the applicant had the following injuries: (i) an abrasion measuring 1.2 by 0.2 cm on the bridge of the nose, (ii) a bruise measuring 2 cm by 2 cm in the area of the right cheekbone, (iii) a bruise measuring 2.5 by 1 cm on a finger of the left hand, and (iv) a bruise measuring 2.5 by 2 cm on the left side of the lumbar region. The expert concluded that the injuries, which were not considered harmful to the applicant’s health, could have been caused on that day by hard blunt objects, for example by fists or feet.
15. On the same day Officer K. lodged a criminal complaint that at 2.10 a.m. on 17 August 2005 the applicant had sworn at him through an open car window when passing by. In the course of enquiries into the police officer’s allegations the applicant denied swearing or any other misbehaviour on his part. The Pskov police found no elements of criminal offences such as hooliganism (Article 213 § 1 of the Criminal Code) or insult of a public official (Article 319 of the Criminal Code) in the applicant’s actions and refused to institute criminal proceedings against him (decision of 24 August 2005).
16. On 22 August 2005 the applicant complained to the Pskov town prosecutor’s office about the unlawful actions of the police officers, indicating their service identification numbers.
17. Investigators of the Pskov town prosecutor’s office carried out a pre-investigation inquiry and refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaint. Their two decisions of 7 October and 2 December 2005 were annulled by their superiors, who considered that the decisions had been based on an incomplete inquiry.
18. In the most recent refusal of 23 December 2005 to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the actions of the police officers, the investigator established the facts as follows, relying on the police officers’ statements. At 2 a.m. on 17 August 2005 the applicant had addressed F. and K. with foul language from the window of his car, which had stopped near their police car. After that, the car with the applicant had started driving away. F. and K. had pursued the car and stopped it. They had taken the applicant to the police station. K. had explained to the applicant that he had been arrested for having committed a criminal offence under Article 319 of the Criminal Code (insult of a public official). On their way to the police station the applicant had behaved provocatively and threatened the police officers that they would have problems at work and would be dismissed. During the applicant’s escorting to the police station the police officers had not used physical force or any means of restraint. F. and K. had taken the applicant from the police station to an addiction-treatment clinic for a medical examination because he had been drunk. Before leaving for the clinic they had been approached by the applicant’s brother, who had enquired about the reasons for the applicant’s detention and a further procedure. The applicant’s brother had suggested that the applicant should have simulated concussion and complained that he had been beaten up by the police officers.
19. The investigator further noted that the drug-clinic doctor had not recorded any injuries on the applicant; and that in his statement signed at the police station the applicant had not denied using foul language and had not complained of any use of force or means of restraint against him. The investigator dismissed statements by I., M. and T. in support of the applicant’s allegations as unreliable and held that the applicant’s allegations had not been confirmed.
20. On 31 January 2006 the Pskov Town Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the investigator’s decision of 23 December 2005. It noted that F. and K. had “categorically” denied that they had beaten up the applicant. It held that there was no evidence of the applicant’s ill-treatment at the police station and that his injuries could have been received in “other circumstances”. On 22 March 2006 the Pskov Regional Court upheld the Town Court’s decision on the applicant’s appeal. It stressed that there had been no eyewitnesses to the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, and that the applicant had not complained of any ill-treatment to the drug-clinic doctor. Referring to the “categorical” denial of any ill-treatment by F. and K., the Regional Court held that the applicant had failed to prove his ill-treatment and that he could have received his injuries in “other circumstances” on 17 August 2005, in a time span between his examination at the addiction-treatment clinic and his examination by the forensic-medical expert.
B. Mr Lebedev’s application
21. The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Novyy Toryal in the Mariy-El Republic.
22. At about 1 a.m. on 31 March 2007 a car without a licence plate, in which the applicant and other young men were going home after a party, was stopped by the traffic police officer. Soon another police car arrived with four or five police officers who, according to the applicant, pushed him and the other young men to the ground, and punched and kicked them. The applicant identified the police officers as M., O., S., V. and Zh.
23. The applicant and the other three men were taken to the police station in Novyy Toryal, where they arrived at 1.45 a.m.
24. According to the applicant, the events at the police station were as follows. Police Officers M., O. and S. interviewed him, asking who had been driving the car and whether the car had been stolen. The applicant denied that he had been driving the car and stated that the driver had run away and that he did not know him. The police officers repeatedly punched and kicked him in the head and on other parts of his body.
25. At 3.20 a.m. the applicant and the others were released. The applicant’s mother met them at the police station and called the ambulance. All four men were taken to the emergency unit of Novyy Toryal Central District Hospital, where they were recorded as having injuries.
26. The applicant was examined at 3.26 a.m. and admitted to the hospital surgical unit in a condition of “medium seriousness” at 4.20 a.m. His right ear was swollen and bleeding. He had a swelling on the back of the head measuring 7 by 4 cm, numerous bruises on the face and temples, and numerous abrasions on the back, neck, shoulders, the right side of the torso and one of his fingers. He had no alcohol on his breath. He was diagnosed with closed craniocerebral injury, brain contusion, traumatic perforation of the right eardrum and numerous contusions to the head and the lumbar region. He was exempted from attending school until 22 April 2007 due to his temporary disability on account of the closed craniocerebral injury and concussion. The hospital communicated information about the applicant’s hospitalisation with injuries allegedly received as a result of his ill-treatment by police officers to the Novyy Toryal police.
27. On 31 March 2007 the Novyy Toryal police officers reported to their superior that they had pursued a car which had had no licence plates and had not stopped at their initial order. When the car had eventually stopped, several young men, seemingly drunk, had sworn at them, refused to get into the police car and tried to run away. The police officers had used force to overcome their resistance, managing to restrain them on the ground and search them, and had then taken them to the police station.
28. On the same day the applicant’s mother complained to the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor’s office about the unlawful actions of the police officers. An investigator of the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor’s office carried out a pre-investigation inquiry into her complaint.
29. On 4 April 2007 the applicant was examined by a forensic-medical expert from the Novyy Toryal division of the Mariy-El Republic Forensic-Medical Bureau. The applicant had bruises around both eyes and an abrasion measuring 4 by 2 cm on the back of the head. Having examined the applicant’s hospital records, the expert concluded in a report of 13 April 2007 that the applicant’s injuries, notably brain contusion, traumatic perforation of the right eardrum, bruises on the face, abrasions on the head, torso and limbs and swelling in the lumbar region, could have been sustained on 31 March 2007 by impacts from hard, blunt objects. The injuries had resulted in short-term health issues for the applicant including a temporary incapacity for work lasting up to three weeks, that is to say minor harm to his health.
30. On 8 May 2007 the Novyy Toryal police brought administrative proceedings against the applicant, issuing administrative-offence records and a decision which stated that at 1 a.m. on 31 March 2007 the applicant had driven a car without a licence plate and without a driving licence and had not stopped the car on a police officer’s repeated order. A fine was imposed on the applicant.
31. On 9 May 2007 a deputy prosecutor of the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor’s office decided that material concerning the applicant’s unlawful driving on 31 March 2007 should be examined separately from the material concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.
32. On 20 May 2007 the Novyy Toryal police decided that no criminal proceedings should be brought against the applicant, whose actions disclosed no elements of a crime under Article 166 § 1 of the Criminal Code (carjacking). It found that it had been the applicant who had been driving the car with no licence plates before being stopped by the police on 31 March 2007. The applicant had bought it from a third person. However, he had not paid the full price and the previous owner had not given him the documents necessary for re-registering the car in his name and obtaining licence plates.
33. Investigators of the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor’s office thrice refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment for lack of the elements of a crime in the police officers’ actions. The refusals were annulled by their superiors, who considered that the inquiry was incomplete.
34. In the most recent decision of 22 June 2007 the investigator, relying on the police officers’ statements, established the facts as follows. During the night of 30-31 March 2007 the applicant, who had been driving a car without a licence plate, had disobeyed a traffic policeman’s order to stop and had tried to escape, thereby violating the traffic rules and committing administrative offences. However, administrative proceedings had not been brought against him in accordance with the law as a result of negligence on the part of the police officers responsible for drawing up administrative-offence records. The police had acted lawfully in apprehending the applicant and taking him to the police station. Officers O., M., S., V., S.K. and N.K. had lawfully used physical force in the course of the applicant’s apprehension, as a result of which he had sustained the injuries described in the forensic-medical expert’s report.
35. That decision was declared lawful and well-founded by the Novyy Toryal district deputy prosecutor (report of 24 June 2007) and by the Novyy Toryal District Court (decision of 14 August 2007, upheld by the Mariy-El Supreme Court on 26 September 2007).
36. On 25 February 2013 the Mariy-El Republic deputy prosecutor annulled the decision of 22 June 2007 as unlawful and unfounded and ordered a fresh pre-investigation inquiry.
C. Mr Korolev’s application
37. The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Diveyevo in Nizhniy Novgorod Region.
38. At about 11 p.m. on 24 March 2007 the applicant was attending a discotheque at the Diveyevo Cultural Centre when he was approached by Police Officer K., who led him to the police car and took him to the Diveyevo district police station. According to the applicant, Police Officer K. twisted his arms behind his back when leading him to the car.
39. According to the applicant the events at the police station were as follows. He was requested to stand facing the wall. K., who wore army-type boots, kicked him at least ten times on the legs. Then he was placed in an administrative-detention cell, where he stayed until his release at about noon on 26 March 2007.
40. In reports to their superiors dated 24 March 2007 Officer K. and two police trainees stated that at 11.30 p.m. on 24 March 2007 at the Diveyevo Cultural Centre the applicant, who had been drunk, had used foul language in their presence, ignoring their orders to stop.
41. N., a police officer on duty at the Diveyevo police station, drew up an administrative-detention record, in which he stated that the applicant, who had committed petty hooliganism, had been subjected to administrative detention for the purpose of the averting the offence. No injuries on the applicant were mentioned in the part of the record concerning the routine procedure of inspection of detainees for injuries. The time of the record was drawn up was indicated as 11.30 p.m. on 24 March 2007.
42. Officer T. drew up an administrative-offence record, in which he stated that at 11.30 p.m. on 24 March 2007 at the Diveyevo Cultural Centre the applicant, who was drunk, had used foul language and ignored police officers’ orders to stop. He had thereby committed an administrative offence of petty hooliganism. The time of the drawing-up the record was indicated as 11.40 p.m. on 24 March 2007. The acting head of the Diveyevo district police issued the applicant a fine of 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
43. After his release from the police station, at 3.20 p.m. on 26 March 2007 the applicant was examined by a doctor at Diveyevo Hospital, who recorded bruises on the interior of the left calf (in the upper and middle parts), an abrasion on the front of the left shin, a bruise on the left ankle, a bruise on the right knee, a bruise on the left elbow, and an abrasion on the left hand. The applicant was diagnosed with contusions of the left shin, left ankle, right knee and left elbow, and abrasions of the left shin and left hand.
44. The hospital passed on information about the applicant’s injuries, allegedly inflicted by the police, to the Diveyevo district prosecutor’s office. On the same day the applicant lodged a criminal complaint seeking K.’s prosecution. An investigator of the prosecutor’s office carried out a pre-investigation inquiry.
45. On 27 March 2007 the applicant was examined by a forensic-medical expert from the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Forensic-Medical Bureau. The applicant had two bruises on the interior of the left calf (in the upper and middle parts) measuring 7 by 3 cm and 10 by 5 cm, a 1.5 by 0.5 cm bruise on the front of the left shin, a 2 by 1 cm bruise on the left ankle, and a 3 by 1.5 cm bruise on the left elbow. He also had an abrasion on the front of the left shin measuring 1.5 by 0.8 cm, an abrasion on the right ankle measuring 1 by 0.4 cm and an abrasion on the left hand measuring 3 by 2 cm. The areas of the back of the left shoulder in the middle part, the left knee, the left shin and the left ankle were painful at palpation. The expert concluded that the injuries, which had not resulted in harm to the applicant’s health, had been caused by hard blunt objects two or three days before the examination, as a result of at least five traumatic impacts (report of 27 March 2007). In reply to the investigator’s additional question as to whether the applicant could have received the injuries when getting into the police car, the expert stated that such a possibility could not be excluded.
46. The Diveyevo district police carried out an internal inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, in the course of which K., other police officers and witnesses gave statements about the events in question. On 28 April 2007 the head of the Diveyevo district police approved a report on the inquiry in which the facts were established as follows. After 10 p.m. on 24 March 2007 K. and two police trainees had approached the applicant and rebuked him for using foul language; he had ignored their commands and continued swearing; K. had ordered that he go with them to the police station but he had refused; K. took him by the sleeve and led him to the police car; they took the applicant to the police station. It was established that no physical force had been used against the applicant. A number of other internal inquiries into the same events were carried out later, with the most recent one (report of 4 March 2013 approved by an acting head of the Nizhniy Novgorod regional police force) finding no disciplinary misconduct in K.’s actions. There was no mention in the report of the applicant receiving injuries when getting into the police car. Nor did K. mention it in his statements given in the course of the internal inquiry on 30 November 2007. K. stated that no physical force or means of restraint had been used against the applicant for lack of resistance on his part.
47. Investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings against Police Officer K. Their refusal was annulled five times by their superiors, who considered that their inquiry was incomplete.
48. The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in K.’s actions was taken on 2 September 2008 by an investigator from the Sarov investigative committee of the Nizhniy Novgorod regional prosecutor’s office. Relying on statements by K. and other police officers, who had denied any violence against the applicant, the investigator held that the applicant could have received the injuries when getting into the police car before being taken to the police station on 24 March 2007. The investigator’s decision was declared lawful and well-founded in the Sarov Town Court’s decision of 16 January 2009, upheld by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 13 March 2009.
49. In May 2013 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist. He complained of a sleep disorder on account of his ill-treatment in police custody on 24 March 2007. He was diagnosed with sleep disorder related to the legs injuries sustained on that day and recommended a consultation and treatment by a neurologist and a trauma specialist.
D. Mr Ivanov’s application
50. The applicant was born in 1969 and lived in Cheboksary.
51. At about 12.30 a.m. on 29 June 2006 the applicant’s car was stopped by Officers V. and Z. of the traffic police. According to the applicant, they knocked him to the ground and kicked him repeatedly. The police officers then drew up records, stating that he was drunk. He disagreed, requesting that he be taken for a medical examination which would confirm that he was not. The police officers took him to the Kaliniskiy district police station instead.
52. According to records drawn up by V. between 12.30 a.m. and 1.50 a.m.: (i) the applicant was suspended from driving because he had signs of alcohol intoxication (alcohol on his breath, red eyes and slurred speech); (ii) he had been ordered to undergo a medical examination to determine whether he had been in a state of alcohol intoxication, but he had refused to do so; (iii) his car had been impounded; and (iv) the applicant had been found to have committed an administrative offence by refusing to undergo a medical examination at the request of the police.
53. At the police station V. and Z. reported to their superior that the applicant had disobeyed their order to stop his car; that they had pursued him until he had eventually stopped; that he had resisted arrest; and that in order to apprehend him they had twisted his arm behind his back, as a result of which he had fallen.
54. At about 5 a.m. the applicant was released from the Kaliniskiy district police station.
55. On the same day both the applicant and Officer Z. lodged criminal complaints with the Kalininskiy district prosecutor’s office, Cheboksary. The applicant complained that he had been beaten up by V. and Z. The latter complained that in the course of the applicant’s apprehension he had hurt his hand when they both had fallen.
56. On 30 June 2006 an investigator ordered the applicant’s forensic-medical examination, which was carried out on 3 July 2006. A forensic-medical expert from the Chuvashia Republic Forensic-Medical Bureau recorded ten abrasions measuring from 0.2 by 0.1 cm to 10 by 5 cm on the upper and middle parts of the lower right arm, on the right wrist and on both knees. The applicant also had four bruises on the middle part of the right upper arm and on the upper and middle parts of the left upper arm, measuring 1.6 by 1.2 cm, 1.7 by 1.3 cm, 0.9 by 0.3 cm and 0.2 by 0.2 cm. The expert concluded that all injuries, which had not resulted in harm to the applicant’s health, could have been caused by hard blunt objects.
57. On 3 August 2006 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 7 of the Kalininskiy District of Cheboksary held a hearing in the administrative proceedings against the applicant. The applicant contested the police officers’ versions of events on 29 June 2006 and stated that he had not been drunk and had demanded to undergo a medical examination that would have confirmed that fact; however, the police officers had not let him be examined. His statements were supported by a witness. The court found the applicant guilty of disobedience of a police officer’s lawful order to undergo a medical examination to detect alcohol intoxication, and sentenced him to the seizure of his driving licence for a year and a half. On 31 August 2006 the Kalininskiy District Court, following a prior appeal by the applicant, upheld the judgment.
58. Investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police officers. Their refusals were annulled by their superiors more than twenty times on the grounds that they had been based on an incomplete inquiry. On several occasions the Kalininskiy District Court of Cheboksary rejected the applicant’s appeals on the grounds that the investigators’ decisions had already been annulled. On two occasions the District Court granted the applicant’s appeals and found the decisions unlawful and unfounded.
59. The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the police officers’ actions was issued on 28 September 2009 by an investigator from the Cheboksary inter-district investigative committee. Relying on the reports by Officers V. and Z. and similar statements given by them later, the investigator held that the applicant’s injuries had been the result of the lawful use of force by the police officers during his arrest. The investigator’s decision was declared lawful and well-founded in the Kalininskiy District Court’s decision of 12 November 2009, and was upheld by the Chuvashia Supreme Court on 17 December 2009.
60. In the same decision of 28 September 2009 the investigator dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by Z., finding no fault on the part of the applicant as Z. had fallen and hurt his hand when arresting him.
61. The applicant brought civil proceedings, seeking to have the investigating authority’s failure to carry out an effective investigation declared unlawful and claiming compensation. On 26 May 2008 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed his application, finding that he had failed to prove that the investigating authority had acted unlawfully, that he had been harmed as a result of its actions or inaction, that there had been a causal connection between specific unlawful behaviour and any harm, and that there had been evidence of an alleged tortfeasor’s liability. It held that domestic law did not provide for compensation of non-pecuniary damage in a case of a delayed decision in reply to a criminal complaint or in a case of the annulment of such a decision. On 30 June 2008, following an appeal by the applicant, the Chuvashia Supreme Court upheld the judgment.
E. Mr Kolistratov’s application
62. The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Novocheboksarsk.
63. At about 6 a.m. on 8 February 2008 the applicant and other young men, who were sitting in his parked car, were approached by traffic-police officers and taken to Novocheboksarsk police station following a complaint from a certain P. that they had broken a window in her car and tried to steal a child seat. The applicant was handcuffed.
64. The applicant described events at the police station as follows. One of the police officers had grabbed him by the neck with one hand and by his head with the other and hit his face against a wall. The applicant’s two front teeth had fallen out and he had felt unwell. Later, he had asked to have the handcuffs removed as they had been causing him pain. Instead, a police officer lifted his hands shackled behind him, inflicting more pain.
65. According to the records drawn up by Officer B. between 6.50 a.m. and 9.20 a.m. on 8 February 2008: (i) the applicant was suspended from driving because he had signs of alcohol intoxication (alcohol on his breath, red eyes and trembling fingers); (ii) he was ordered to undergo a medical examination for detecting alcohol intoxication, but refused to do so; (iii) his car was impounded; and (iv) the applicant was found to have committed an administrative offence by refusing to undergo a medical examination at the request of the police. The applicant was subsequently found guilty of disobeying a police officer’s lawful order to undergo a medical examination for detecting alcohol intoxication, and sentenced to the seizure of his driving licence for a year and a half (judgment of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 5 of Novocheboksarsk of 14 March 2008, and was upheld by the Novocheboksarsk Town Court on 19 May 2008).
66. In a report to his superior, Officer M. stated that the applicant had behaved aggressively at the police station and that he himself had hit his head against a wall and had broken his tooth.
67. No criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant in relation to P.’s complaint in respect of the attempted theft of a child seat (Novocheboksarsk town police decision of 18 February 2008).
68. After his release at about 6 p.m. on 8 February 2008 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the traumatology unit of the Novocheboksarsk town hospital. The applicant had abrasions on the right side of his face, his lip, the left side of his neck and the wrists, and the crowns of two upper teeth on the right side were broken. On the same day he was examined by a dentist who recorded that the upper front tooth on the right was missing, the crown of the next tooth to the right was broken, and that the two lower front teeth were loose as a result of a traumatic subluxation.
69. On 12 February 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint that he had been ill-treated at the police station. The Novocheboksarsk investigative committee at the Chuvashiya Republic prosecutor’s office carried out a pre-investigation inquiry.
70. An investigator obtained an opinion of a forensic-medical expert from the Novocheboksarsk division of the Chuvashia Republic Forensic-Medical Bureau, who considered that the applicant’s injuries could have been received within twenty-four hours of the applicant’s medical examination on 8 February 2008, as a result of an impact from a hard blunt object, for example as a result of hitting a wall as regards the injuries to the front teeth, lip and face. The injuries had resulted in short-term health problems lasting up to three weeks, that is to say minor harm to the applicant’s health.
71. Investigators of the Novocheboksarsk investigative committee refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police. Their refusal was annulled fourteen times by their superiors, who considered that it had been based on an incomplete inquiry, and a fresh pre-investigation inquiry was ordered.
72. The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the police officers’ actions was taken by an investigator on 5 November 2009. He cited the police officers’ statements that the applicant had tried to run away, they had therefore handcuffed him in order to take him to the police station, where the applicant himself had struck his face against a wall. Relying on the police officers’ statements, the investigator concluded that the applicant had inflicted the injuries on himself by striking his face against a wall at the police station, and that the abrasions on his neck and wrists had been a result of the lawful use of force by the police officers in the course of his arrest. The investigator’s decision was declared lawful and well-founded by the Novocheboksarsk Town Court’s decision of 23 April 2010, and was upheld by the Chuvashia Supreme Court on 25 May 2010.
F. Mr Sergeyev’s application
73. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow.
74. At about 5.20 a.m. on 28 May 2008 the applicant was arrested by Police Officers P. and V. in a twenty-four-hour shop and taken to the Mitino district police station of the Moscow North-Western administrative circuit. According to the applicant, in the police car he was slapped in the face several times, and at the police station the police officers repeatedly punched him in the head and other parts of the body and kicked him in the chest.
75. In their reports concerning the incident the police officers did not mention that the applicant had had any injuries.
76. In a record of the applicant’s administrative detention at 5.30 a.m. on 28 May 2008, drawn up at 5.32 a.m. that day, an officer on duty at the police station noted the applicant’s complaint that the police officers had inflicted injuries on him. The record further stated that the applicant’s examination had revealed no injuries on him.
77. At 6 a.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor at an addiction-treatment hospital and was found to be in a state of alcohol intoxication. The doctor noted that the applicant was handcuffed and had abrasions on his face.
78. According to an administrative-offence record drawn up on 28 May 2008 by the officer on duty, at 5.20 a.m. on 28 May 2008 the applicant had breached public order by using foul language in a public place and ignoring police officers’ requests to stop. On the same day the Justice of the Peace of the Mitino District Court Circuit no. 175 found that the applicant had committed petty hooliganism and imposed a RUB 500 fine on him. The applicant, who pleaded guilty, did not appeal against the judgment. He was released after the hearing.
79. On the same day he was examined by a doctor at polyclinic no. 229 who recorded bruising to the area of both eyes and the nose, bleeding of the sclera of both eyes, a fractured nose and a possible concussion. On 3 June 2008 the applicant was examined at town hospital no. 71 and diagnosed with acute right-side perforated post-traumatic otitis and bruising of the soft tissue of the head, in particular in the area of the left eye and the cheek bones. On 9 June 2008 he was examined at polyclinic no. 2 and diagnosed with hearing difficulties on both sides and acute right-side perforated post-traumatic otitis.
80. Following the applicant’s criminal complaint of 2 July 2008, the Tushinskiy district investigative committee at the Moscow prosecutor’s office carried out a pre-investigation inquiry.
81. The applicant’s medical records were examined by a forensic-medical expert from the Moscow City Forensic-Medical Bureau. The expert concluded that the bruising and fracture of the nose (which had resulted in short-term health problems lasting up to three weeks, that is to say minor harm to the applicant’s health), the bruising in the area of both eyes and the cheek bones and the bleeding to the sclera of both eyes could have been sustained on 28 May 2008 as a result of impacts from hard blunt objects. As no injuries had been recorded in the area of the external right ear, the expert doubted that the perforated otitis had been a result of trauma or its connection to the alleged police ill-treatment (the expert’s report of 9 October 2009).
82. Investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the police officers’ actions. Their three refusals issued between July 2008 and October 2009 were annulled because they were based on an incomplete inquiry.
83. In the most recent refusal to open a criminal case of 28 January 2010 an investigator held that the applicant, who had been drunk, could have fallen and injured himself. It relied, inter alia, on Officer P.’s report dated 7 July 2008 that the applicant had been brought to the police station with “visible injuries”. That decision was declared lawful and well-founded in the Tushinskiy District Court’s decision of 19 March 2010, and later upheld by the Moscow City Court on 17 May 2010.
I. JOINDER OF APPLICATIONS
84. Given that the applications at hand concern similar complaints and raise identical issues under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court decides to join them pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
II. AS TO LOCUS STANDI OF MS IVANOVA
85. Following Mr Ivanov’s death, his widow Ms Ivanova expressed the wish to pursue the application. The Government left the issue as to Ms Ivanova’s standing to the Court’s discretion.
86. In the cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).
87. In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Ivanova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For convenience, it will, however, continue to refer to Mr Ivanov as the applicant in the present judgment.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
88. The applicants complained that the police had used physical force against them, and that no effective investigation had been carried out into their complaints. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, and some of them also on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
89. The Government contested those arguments, maintaining the conclusions of the domestic inquiries. They stated that, despite the numerous annulments of the investigators’ refusals to institute criminal proceedings and a resultant delay in carrying out the inquiry in Mr Ivanov’s case, the inquiry had been thorough and comprehensive. They submitted that all the applications were manifestly ill-founded. They also argued that Mr Korolev and Mr Kolistratov, who had not brought a civil claim for damages, had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
90. As regards the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion, the Court reiterates that civil remedies against unlawful actions attributable to the State or its agents cannot be regarded as sufficient for a Contracting State’s obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in cases like the present concerning alleged ill-treatment in police custody, as they are aimed at awarding damages rather than identifying and punishing those responsible (see Gladyshev v. Russia, no. 2807/04, § 49, 30 July 2009). The requirement for compensation to remedy a breach of Article 3 at national level is in addition to the requirement of a thorough and effective investigation; it is not an alternative (see Sapožkovs v. Latvia, no. 8550/03, §§ 54-55, 11 February 2014).
91. The Court therefore finds that the question of whether a civil claim for damages could have been considered an effective remedy is closely linked to the question of whether the investigations into the events in question were effective. That issue relates to the merits of Mr Korolev’s and Mr Kolistratov’s complaints. The Court therefore decides to join this issue to the merits (see Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, § 55, 30 July 2009).
92. The Court notes that the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
93. The relevant general principles were recently reiterated by the Court’s Grand Chamber in the case of Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-88, ECHR 2015). In particular, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of individuals within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such detention. The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the version of events given by the victim. In the absence of such an explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government. That is justified by the fact that those in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them (ibid., § 83).
94. The Court further reiterates its established case-law that the use of force by the police in the course of arrest operations will only not be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if indispensable and not excessive. The burden to prove this rests on the Government (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 72-78, ECHR 2000-XII, and, among recent authorities, Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, §§ 52-54, 21 January 2016).
1. Credibility of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in police custody and the presumption of fact
95. The Court observes that the applicants were detained by the police for various reasons, such as using foul language (Mr Ksenz, Mr Korolev and Mr Sergeyev) or violating traffic regulations (Mr Lebedev, Mr Ivanov and Mr Kolistratov). They all disputed the reasons for their detention and presented accounts of events which differed from those of the police.
96. After spending different periods of time in police custody the applicants were found to have sustained injuries. According to the relevant forensic-medical experts, the injuries were the result of impacts from hard blunt objects. The expert who examined Mr Ksenz specified that those objects could have been fists and feet. Mr Kolistratov’s injuries could have been sustained as a result of hitting a wall. The Court considers that the injuries could arguably have resulted from the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment by police officers, in particular as a result of being punched and kicked, or, in the case of Mr Kolistratov, his face being struck against a wall.
97. The above factors are sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicants’ account of events and to satisfy the Court that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody were credible.
2. Whether an effective investigation was carried out into the applicants’ allegations of police ill-treatment
98. The Court observes further that the applicants’ allegations of their injuries being the result of police ill-treatment were dismissed by the domestic investigating authorities. The investigators based their findings on the results of the pre-investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and the carrying out of an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 129, 24 July 2014). The investigators’ decisions refusing to open a criminal case (two decisions in Mr Ksenz’s case, three decisions in Mr Lebedev’s case, five decisions in Mr Korolev’s case, more than twenty decisions in Mr Ivanov’s case, fourteen decisions in Mr Kolistratov’s case and three decisions in Mr Sergeyev’s case) were each time annulled by the investigating authorities for having been based on an incomplete inquiry and a fresh inquiry was ordered. The investigators’ most recent refusals to initiate criminal proceedings were upheld by the domestic courts. In 2013 the investigator’s decision in Mr Lebedev’s case was again annulled and an additional inquiry ordered.
99. The Court reiterates its finding that the mere carrying out of a pre-investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article 3 of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill-treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to institute criminal proceedings and conduct a proper criminal investigation in which a full range of investigative measures are carried out (ibid., §§ 129 and 132-36).
100. The Court has no reason to hold otherwise in the present case, which involves credible allegations of ill-treatment of which the authorities were promptly made aware. It finds that the investigating authorities have failed to carry out effective investigations into the applicants’ allegations of police ill-treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention.
101. In the absence of an effective investigation, a civil claim would not have offered Mr Korolev and Mr Kolistratov sufficient redress. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objections as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by those applicants.
3. Whether the Government provided explanations capable of casting doubt on the applicants’ versions of events
102. The Government maintained the conclusions of the investigating authorities to the effect that the applicants’ injuries had not been attributable to the conduct of the police officers and had been either self-inflicted (Mr Kolistratov and Mr Sergeyev) or sustained in other circumstances (Mr Ksenz and Mr Korolev), or that the injuries had been the result of the lawful use of force by the police in arresting the applicants (Mr Lebedev and Mr Ivanov).
103. The Court notes further that the investigating authorities based their conclusions almost exclusively on the statements of those same police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicants. The explanation that Mr Ksenz could have received injuries in “other circumstances” was not based on any specific facts. The explanation that Mr Korolev had received the injuries when getting into the police car was also purely speculative and lacked the assessment of the expert’s opinion that the injuries were the result of at least five traumatic impacts. The explanation of Mr Sergeyev’s injuries was similarly of a speculative nature. It did not address even such obvious discrepancies as the lack of any injuries on the applicant - according to the record of his administrative detention - and the presence of some injuries - according to a report by the addiction-clinic doctor who had examined the applicant shortly after the time spent by him at the hands of the police. In explaining Mr Lebedev’s injuries the investigating authority referred to the police officers’ general statements that they had used force lawfully, without establishing any specific acts of the police officers in using force and any actions on the part of the applicant which could have justified the use of force, that is without assessing whether the use of force was indispensable and not excessive. That assessment was also lacking in the explanation of Mr Ivanov’s injuries, which did not, moreover, explain how his multiple injuries could have resulted from a single fall.
104. Given that those explanations were provided as a result of the superficial domestic inquiries’ falling short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court finds that they cannot be considered satisfactory or convincing. It holds that the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the applicants’ account of events, and which it therefore finds established.
4. Legal classification of the treatment
105. The Court reiterates that it has deemed treatment to be “inhuman” because it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering. Treatment has been held to be “degrading” when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance, or when it was such as to drive the victim to act against his will or conscience (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2010). The Court finds that the police subjected the applicants to inhuman and degrading treatment.
106. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
107. Mr Ksenz and Mr Lebedev complained that the police had detained them unlawfully, in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 5 § 1, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non- compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.”
108. The Government submitted that the police had acted lawfully in detaining the applicants, who had committed administrative offences, and in taking them to the police stations, in particular for the purpose of drawing up administrative-offence records.
109. The Court notes the domestic authorities’ findings concerning the applicants’ detention (see paragraphs 17, 19, 33 and 34 above). It considers that the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
110. The Court observes that Mr Ksenz and Mr Lebedev spent about three hours each in police custody on 17 August 2005 and 31 March 2007, respectively. According to the findings of the domestic inquiry, Mr Ksenz was informed by the police that he had been arrested for having committed the criminal offence of insult of a public official (see paragraphs 14 and 17 above). However, no record of his arrest as a suspect was drawn up, and no criminal proceedings were brought against him. Furthermore, no record of his detention as an administrative offender was drawn up, and no administrative proceedings were brought against him either. As regards Mr Lebedev, he was detained for having driven a car without a licence plate. Those facts were the basis for the administrative proceedings against him. According to the domestic inquiry, however, those proceedings were not brought against him on the day of his detention as a result of negligence on the part of the police officers (see paragraph 33 above). Those proceedings were instituted only on 8 May 2007, more than a month later. The same facts were also the basis for the inquiry which ended with the non-institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant, whose arrest as a suspect had never been recorded either. Hence, both applicants’ periods of detention went unrecorded.
111. The Court emphasises the fundamental importance of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention for securing the right of individuals in a democracy to be free from arbitrary detention by the authorities. It has reiterated in that connection that any deprivation of liberty must not only have been effected in conformity with the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but must equally be in keeping with the very purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 122-23, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Fatma Akaltun Fırat v. Turkey, no. 34010/06, § 29, 10 September 2013; and Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, § 50, 8 October 2015). What is at stake is both the protection of the physical liberty of individuals and their personal security in a context which, in the absence of safeguards, could result in subversion of the rule of law and place detainees beyond the reach of the most rudimentary forms of legal protection (see Kurt, cited above, § 123).
112. The Court concludes that the applicants’ detention was unlawful and amounted to a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
113. The Court has examined the remainder of the applications, as submitted by the applicants. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that this part of the applications does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, it must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
114. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
115. The applicants claimed the following sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage: Mr Ksenz claimed 40,000 euros (EUR); Mr Lebedev claimed EUR 50,000; Mr Korolev claimed EUR 10,000; Mr Ivanov claimed EUR 6,000; Mr Kolistratov claimed EUR 7,000; and Mr Sergeyev claimed EUR 20,000.
116. The Government submitted that, if the Court were to find a violation of the applicants’ rights under the Convention, the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction, and that in any event the sums claimed were excessive. The Government considered that, in the circumstances of the case, no compensation should be awarded to Ms Ivanova.
117. Making its assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the nature of the violation found in respect of each applicant, the Court awards Mr Ksenz EUR 26,000, Mr Lebedev EUR 30,000, and Mr Korolev, Ms Ivanova, Mr Kolistratov and Mr Sergeyev the sums claimed by the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
118. Mr Lebedev also claimed EUR 1,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic law-enforcement authorities and EUR 2,000 for those incurred before the Court. Mr Korolev claimed EUR 5,657.62 and RUB 1,238.69 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
119. The Government contested the claims as excessive or unsupported by documents.
120. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects Mr Lebedev’s claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award him the sum claimed for the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable. The Court considers it reasonable to award Mr Korolev the sum of EUR 3,300 for the proceedings before the Court. The sums awarded should be paid directly to the applicants’ representatives’ bank accounts, as requested by the applicants.
C. Default interest
121. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that Mr Ivanov’s heir, Ms Larisa Ivanova, can pursue his application;
3. Decides to join to the merits the Government’s objections as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies by Mr Korolev and Mr Kolistratov, and rejects them;
4. Declares the complaints concerning the ill-treatment of the applicants by police officers and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the incidents, as well as the complaints concerning the unlawful detention of Mr Ksenz and Mr Lebedev, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unlawful detention of Mr Ksenz and Mr Lebedev;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the following applicants and Ms Ivanova, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) to Mr Ksenz EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) to Mr Lebedev EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) to Mr Korolev EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iv) to Ms Ivanova EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(v) to Mr Kolistratov EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(vi) to Mr Sergeyev EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(vii) to Mr Lebedev EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicant’s representative;
(viii) to Mr Korolev EUR 3,300 (three thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicant’s representative;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
8. Dismisses the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction submitted by Mr Ksenz, Mr Lebedev and Mr Korolev.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 December 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Helena
Date of introduction
12 August 2006
Mr Aleksandr Vladimirovich Ksenz
Mr M.V. Kuznetsov, a lawyer practising in Pskov
21 December 2007
Mr Ruslan Anatolyevich Lebedev
Mr A.I. Ryzhov, Ms O.A. Sadovskaya and Mr I.A. Kalyapin, lawyers from the Committee Against Torture, a non-governmental organisation based in Nizhniy Novgorod
1 September 2009
Mr Vadim Alekseyevich Korolev
Mr A.I. Ryzhov, Ms O.A. Sadovskaya and Mr I.A. Kalyapin, lawyers from the Committee Against Torture, a non-governmental organisation based in Nizhniy Novgorod
5 November 2009
Mr Sergey Gennadyevich Ivanov
A.V. Glukhov, a lawyer practising in Novocheboksarsk
1 June 2010
Mr Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kolistratov
D.V. Fedorov, a lawyer practising in Cheboksary
4 June 2010
Mr Gennadiy Albertovich Sergeyev
P.V. Chikov, head of Agora, a non-governmental interregional association of human rights organisations registered in Kazan