European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF L.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 27368/19 and 14 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

4 October 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of L.A. and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Georgios A. Serghides, President,

Anja Seibert-Fohr,

Peeter Roosma, judges,

and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the fifteen 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 seventeen Russian nationals (“the applicants”), whose personal details are set out in the appendix;

the decision not to have the applicants’ names in applications nos. 27368/19, 58127/19 and 11887/21 disclosed;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the State’s obligation to provide protection from domestic violence 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 this office, Mr M. Vinogradov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of applications;

the decision to give priority to application no. 3713/21;

the parties’ observations;

the comments submitted by the human rights organisation Zona Prava and Equal Rights Trust which were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section;

Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns the authorities’ alleged failure to protect the applicants from acts of domestic violence and to carry out an effective investigation into these acts. The applicants relied on Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention, taken on their own and in conjunction with Articles 13 and 14. The individual circumstances and domestic procedures relevant to each case are set out in the appended table.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

2.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

3.  The applicants, relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, complained that the authorities had failed to afford them the effective protection against domestic violence and to investigate the acts of violence of which they had been victims. The Court will consider these complaints from the standpoint of Article 3.

4.  The Government claimed that Ms L.A. had lost her victim status since she had received compensation for an excessive length of criminal proceedings. They further argued that Ms V.D.’s complaint about an initial assault had been belated as she had not brought it up at domestic level for over two years. They also claimed that some of the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as they had not challenged the decisions refusing institution of criminal proceedings before a prosecutor or in domestic courts. As these objections are closely linked to the substance of the applicants’ complaint, the Court joins them to the merits. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

5.  Medical documentation and police reports show that the applicants suffered from stalking, physical and verbal violence at the hands of their partners and family members. As a consequence, the applicants sustained injuries, including brain traumas, broken bones, hematomas, bruises and abrasions on the face and body. Those injuries, whether taken on their own or together with the fear, emotional and psychological distress that the applicants must have experienced due to their partners’ and family members’ threatening behaviour amounted to a treatment falling within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, §§ 75-76, 14 December 2021).

6.  The authorities’ positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention comprise, firstly, an obligation to put in place a legislative and regulatory framework of protection; secondly, an obligation to respond promptly to reports of domestic violence and take measures to protect individuals against a risk of ill-treatment; and thirdly, an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into each instance of such ill-treatment (ibid., § 78).

7.  The Court has previously found that Russian legal framework falls short of the requirement to establish and apply effectively a system punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims (ibid., § 100). Russian law does not criminalise acts of domestic violence, whether as a separate offence or an aggravating form of any other offences, and overlooks the forms that do not involve physical violence. Even when physical violence is involved, existing criminal-law provisions require the injuries to reach a high threshold of severity to warrant public prosecution. The prosecution of the injuries of lesser gravity is left to the private initiative of the victim. The legislation also does not provide for protection orders or similar protection mechanisms. The deficiencies in the Russian legal regulation have led the Court to conclude that the Russian authorities have failed to establish an adequate legal framework to prosecute domestic violence and therefore failed in their first obligation above.

8.  The second obligation - to respond promptly to the victims’ complaints and to protect them from further violence - arises if the authorities knew or ought to have known of the violence to which the victims had been subjected. All the applicants reported their partners’ and family members’ violent behaviour to the police. Often the initial reports were followed by many subsequent complaints. Some applicants supported their credible allegations with medical documents, while others had visible injuries on their face and body, showing the extent of the violence against them. Therefore, the authorities were aware, or ought to have been aware, of the violence the applicants’ had suffered, and had an obligation to assess a risk of its recurrence and take adequate and sufficient measures for the applicants’ protection (ibid., §§ 105-107).

9.  The Court reiterates that autonomous, proactive and comprehensive risk assessment is critical to determining whether the victim is at risk of further violence (ibid., § 108). It is equally important in the cases where the perpetrator’s release from detention was anticipated, as it was in the case of Ms Kazanbiyeva (see Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, § 58, 15 January 2009). However, due to a lack of policy and guidance in national law, risk of recurrent violence in the applicants’ cases had not been properly assessed. Although the police could have taken some reasonable steps within the existing legal framework (see Tunikova and Others, cited above, § 109), they either refused to initiate criminal investigations or, if an investigation did take place, did not apply adequate measures of restraint. The lack of any form of protection orders in the domestic legislation and the authorities’ failure to take appropriate measures to protect the applicants allowed perpetrators to continue threatening, harassing and assaulting them for years without hindrance (ibid., §§ 110-11).

10.  The authorities’ failure to fulfil the obligation to investigate effectively the applicants’ complaints also stemmed from the deficiencies of substantive law. The serious incidents of domestic violence require a criminal-law response and, although some of the perpetrators had been convicted of the administrative offence of “battery”, the administrative-law response did not correspond to the gravity of the ill-treatment the applicants had suffered (ibid., § 91). The police refused to launch criminal-law proceedings on account of the “insignificant” severity of the applicants’ injuries. Thus, the applicants could only seek redress through private prosecution and could not benefit from any assistance from the authorities. Leaving the applicants to their own devices in a situation of known domestic violence is tantamount to relinquishing the State’s obligation to investigate all instances of ill-treatment (ibid., § 117). As the applicants’ injuries were not deemed sufficiently severe to constitute any publicly-prosecutable offence under substantive law, their complaints about the authorities’ refusal to launch an investigation were bound to fail. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s non-exhaustion objection.

11.  Finally, the Court also rejects the Government’s two remaining objections. While Ms L.A received a compensation for an excessive length of the criminal proceedings, the perpetrator’s impunity cast doubt on the authorities’ resolve to investigate serious incidents of domestic violence, of which she had been a victim. Ms V.D. had continually complained about the initial assault and the police’s failure to investigate it in various proceedings. She acted diligently and lodged her complaints promptly even within the limited scope of proceedings available to her. Her complaint was not belated. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s objections concerning Ms L.A. and Ms V.D.

12.  In the light of the above the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs.

III.   OTHER COMPLAINTS

13.  Some applicants also complained under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the above complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  Ms Kazanbiyeva claimed 3,311 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the rehabilitation expenses. The applicants, except for Ms Ankudinova who did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, claimed various amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

15.  The Government considered the claims unsubstantiated and excessive.

16.  The Court awards EUR 20,000 to each of the applicants, except Ms Ankudinova, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also awards Ms Kazanbiyeva EUR 3,311 in respect of the pecuniary damage she claimed. As to costs and expenses, the Court awards the sums indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable. These amounts are to be paid into the bank account of the applicants’ representatives, as requested by them, except in the case of Ms Chebykina, in which the sum should be paid to her. A portion of the sum awarded to Ms Movsisyan in the amount of EUR 6,100, is to be paid into the bank account of her representative and the remaining EUR 100 into her account, as requested.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Joins the Government’s objections to the merits;

3.      Declares the complaints about failure to protect the applicants from acts of domestic violence and to carry out an effective investigation into these acts admissible;

4.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs and dismisses the Government’s objections;

5.      Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;

6.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 3,311 (three thousand three hundred and eleven euros) to Ms Kazanbiyeva, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) to each of the applicants, except for Ms Ankudinova, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(iii) the amounts set out in the Appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the bank account of the applicants’ representatives, except for Ms Chebykina; part of the amount awarded to Ms Movsisyan, EUR 6,100, is to be paid to the bank account of her representative and the remaining EUR 100 to her account;

(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;

7.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

          Olga Chernishova                                           Georgios A. Serghides
          Deputy Registrar                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Application no. Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Represented by	Circumstances of the case, medical evidence, and relevant domestic proceedings	Amount awarded for costs and expenses
27368/19   26/04/2019   L.A. 1987 Moscow   Valentina Nikolayevna FROLOVA	In 2016, Ms L.A.’s brother assaulted her. Trauma certificate indicated a broken finger and a bruise on the forearm. The investigation was repeatedly suspended due to “the inability to identify the suspect”, and was discontinued on 29/03/2016 after the prosecution had become time-barred. On 03/12/2019 the Moscow City Court awarded her compensation of RUB 30,000 for an excessive length of criminal proceedings.	EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros)
58127/19   29/10/2019   V.D. 1985 Elektrostal   Vanessa KOGAN	On 12/06/2016 the ex-husband beat Ms V.D. A medical certificate from the Buryatiya Republic Hospital recorded injury to the face and lips. Ten days later, after threatening her on the phone, the ex-husband raped Ms V.D. at knifepoint. He was convicted on charges of rape and sentenced to four years and eight months’ suspended imprisonment. The police refused to institute criminal proceedings into the first assault because the injuries were not severe enough for launching public prosecution. Ms V.D.’s attempts to raise these charges in the criminal proceedings on the second assault, and her complaint about the death threats were unsuccessful (recent refusal of 29/04/2019).	EUR 4,748 (four thousand seven hundred and forty-eight euros)
63221/19   03/12/2019   Yelena Nikolayevna TRETYAKOVA 1969 St Petersburg   Yelizaveta Sergeyevna TRETYAKOVA 2002 St Petersburg   Vanessa KOGAN	Between 2016 and 2018 Ms Tretyakova and her daughter reported seven assaults by their ex-husband and father to the police, including knife attacks, strangulation, beatings and death threats. On 11/05/2016 the certificate from Saint Petersburg Town Clinic no.114 recorded bruises on Ms Yelena Tretyakova’s wrists, and on her daughter’s neck. The police refused to institute criminal proceedings because the injuries were not severe enough for launching public prosecution. On 5/08/2019 he was convicted for death threats, but relieved of the punishment due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. On 23/12/2020 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on the charges of “tormenting”.	EUR 3,665 (three thousand six hundred and sixty-five euros)
21101/20   25/05/2020   Mariya Valeryevna POLSHIKOVA 1976   Aleksandr Sergeyevich FEDOTOV 2011 Moscow   Vanessa KOGAN	On 15/08/2018 Ms Polshikova and her son were assaulted by her former husband. The medical examination in the trauma unit revealed bruises on the Ms Polshikova’s back and chest, and a haematoma on her son’s face. The police refused to institute criminal proceedings because the injuries were not severe enough for launching public prosecution. The application for a judicial review was unsuccessful (the Moscow Regional Court, 06/02/2020). In 2020 Ms Polshikova withdrew her complaint after the prosecution had become time-barred.	EUR 3,745 (three thousand seven hundred and forty-five euros)
25293/20   23/06/2020   Yelena Viktorovna ANDREYEVA 1981 Lopatino   Vanessa KOGAN	Between 2018 and 2020 Ms Andreyeva was repeatedly assaulted by her husband. The report drawn up on 28/12/2018 at the Sklifosovskiy Hospital indicated brain injuries and bruises on the face. On 1/08/2019 the police were altered to the assault. They recorded bruises on the head and arm but refused to institute criminal proceedings due to a lack of forensic assessment of the gravity of injuries. On 10/01/2020 Ms Andreyeva complained about another assault to the police, providing a trauma certificate which recorded a bruised cheek and throat injury. Its results remain unknown.	EUR 3,157 (three thousand one hundred and fifty-seven euros)
25864/20   02/07/2020 Olga Alekseyevna BALUKOVA 1983 Nemchinovka   Valentina Nikolayevna FROLOVA	Since 2018 Ms Balukova’s ex-partner L. has been stalking and harassing her. He used her intimate photographs to create fake online profiles, assaulted her verbally and physically, threatened to kill or mutilate her. On 27/12/2019 L. assaulted Ms Balukova. Inozemtsev and Botkin hospitals’ certificates recorded a brain injury, bruised face and head. The police instituted criminal proceedings on the charges of death threats, which were repeatedly suspended due to inability to identify the suspect. On 08/07/2020 the supervising prosecutor set aside the suspension decision and ordered an additional inquiry.	EUR 4,190 (four thousand one hundred and ninety euros)
34851/20   10/08/2020   Anna Olegovna YEGOROVA 1989 Novokuznetsk   Vanessa KOGAN	Between 2018 and 2019 Ms Yegorova was repeatedly assaulted by her husband. On 07/06/2019 he severely beat her. A trauma certificate indicated multiple haematomas and abrasions on the head, shoulders, and wrist. The police repetitively declined to investigate the incident due to the lack of forensic assessment of the gravity of injuries. On 10/02/2020 the Kemerovo Regional Court dismissed Ms Yegorova’s application for judicial review. On 29/10/2019 the husband was convicted of administrative offence of “battery” and fined RUB 5,000 (EUR 70).	EUR 2,461 (two thousand four hundred and sixty-one euros)
40962/20   17/09/2020   Asya Davidovna MOVSISYAN 1985 Kraskovo   Mariya Igorevna NEMOVA	Between 2018 and 2020 Ms Movsisyan was assaulted by her ex-husband ten times: he banged on her door, threatened to kidnap her, kill her and “cut her into pieces”, verbally and physically abused her. The police did not order a forensic medical examination and took no action in response to her request to review her medical documentation. They declined to investigate the ten assaults because no forensic examination had been carried out (most recent refusal of 13/03/2020). On 9/09/2020 the Lyubertsy Town Court found that the police had unlawfully failed to investigate the complaints.	EUR 6,200 (six thousand two hundred euros)
45783/20   15/10/2020 Marina Vitalyevna CHEBYKINA 1990 Sukhinichi   Andrey Aleksandrovich RUDOV	Ms Chebykina’s ex-husband threatened her with death but the police refused to investigate the threats as not being sufficiently “real” (5/03/2020). On 26/03/2020 he attacked Ms Chebykina, bruising her chest and elbow. On account of this incident he was convicted of an administrative offence of “battery” and fined RUB 5,000 (EUR 70). On 11/04/2020 the ex-husband threw stones at Ms Chebykina’s window, banged on her door trying to get into her flat. She reported the incident to the police, but they refused to open an investigation. Her appeal for judicial review was unsuccessful (the Kaluga Regional Court, 06/07/2020).	EUR 2,170 (two thousand one hundred and seventy euros)
47414/20   12/10/2020 Lyudmila Alekseyevna ANKUDINOVA 1952 St Petersburg   Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GAVRILOV	Ms Ankudinova lives together with her son who has been abusing her verbally and physically. He was convicted for threatening to kill her (08/05/2018, 80 hours’ compulsory labour) and of “battery” (17/05/2018, fine of RUB 6,000 (EUR 82)). Ms Ankudinova unsuccessfully attempted to have him evicted. While the courts acknowledged that the son had used violence against her, they held that it was not a sufficient ground for his eviction (the Supreme Court of Russia, 06/08/2020).
3713/21   15/01/2021   Gulli Nadirovna KAZANBIYEVA 1994 Novokuli   Tamilla IMANOVA	Since 2015 Ms Kazanbiyeva has been physically and verbally abused by her husband. The police were alerted to at least two incidents but did not intervene. On 13/09/2019 the ex-husband severely beat her. Forensic examination assessed the injuries – a concussion, broken jaw and arm, bruises and abrasions on the head, face, and chest - as being of medium gravity. After spending a month in pre-trial detention the ex-husband was released. On 27/10/2020 he was sentenced to one year and one month’s imprisonment. Throughout the proceedings he continued texting Ms Kazanbiyeva, threatening to kill her upon his release. He was released in 2021. Following six refusals, on 6/02/2021 the police instituted criminal proceedings on charges of “tormenting” and death threats, the outcome of which remains unknown.	EUR 10,277 (ten thousand two hundred and seventy-seven euros)
4605/21   25/12/2020 Lyudmila Fedorovna SAKOVA 1974 Orenburg   Valentina Nikolayevna FROLOVA	Since 2018 Ms Sakova has been a victim of physical and verbal violence perpetrated by her brother. Many medical assessments indicated bruises and abrasions on her face and body. Her brother was fined several times in administrative proceedings on charges of “battery” (most recently on 26/06/2020 by the Orenburgskiy District Court in the Orenburg Region) and also criminally convicted of causing minor bodily injuries and “battery” and sentenced to community service (28/05/2019, the Orenburgskiy District Court).	EUR 5,837 (five thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven euros)
9130/21   09/03/2021   Yelizaveta Arkadyevna SHUMILOVA 1997 Astrakhan   Marina Olegovna DUCHENKO	Since August 2020 the Ms Shumilova’s former partner has stalked and harassed her; he threatened to douse her with acid and accompanied his threats with photos taken inside her flat. The police refused to investigate on the grounds that the threats were not sufficiently “real”; the supervising prosecutor upheld the decision declining the institution of criminal proceedings as lawful and justified (most recently on 13/02/2021).	EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)
11887/21   08/02/2021 N.S. 1988 Moscow   Mariya Igorevna NEMOVA	Following their separation in 2018, the former partner has been stalking and harassing Ms N.S., loitering in front of her house, dousing her with green liquid, scribbling offences on her door and making threats to kill her. The police refused to investigate these events (the most recent decision of 18/11/2020). On 08/08/2020 he attacked Ms N.S. and bruised her leg. On 11/09/2020 he was convicted of “battery” and fined RUB 20,000 (EUR 225).	EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros)
16273/21   18/03/2021 Olga Viktorovna KURKAKHANOVA 1992 Mahilioŭ, Belarus   Vanessa KOGAN	After Ms Kurkakhanova’s husband abducted their new-born baby, she was forced to move to Chechnya to be able to visit the child. During these visits the husband repeatedly abused Ms Kurkakhanova verbally and physically. A medical assessment conducted on her on 22/05/2018 revealed bruises and abrasions on her face, neck and shoulders. On 16/07/2018 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings because the injuries were not severe enough for launching public prosecution. The most recent refusal to investigate was quashed by the prosecutor on 18/10/2020.	EUR 3,210 (three thousand two hundred and ten euros)