THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 12211/15 Ali Lakayevich KHIZRIYEV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Peeter Roosma, President, Dmitry Dedov, Andreas Zünd, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 February 2015,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Ali Khizriyev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Mekenskaya. He was represented before the Court by Materi Chechni, an NGO practising in Grozny.

2. The Government were represented initially by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office.

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. On 5 April 2006 a group of men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house and fired three shots at him. Then they drove off in two grey UAZ military-type cars.

5. Shortly after the incident, two grey UAZ military-type vehicles arrived at checkpoint no. 172 manned by local police. The drivers of both vehicles showed the on-duty officers identity service cards of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and were allowed to go through the checkpoint.

6. On 5 April 2006 the Naurskiy district prosecutor’s office (“the investigators”) opened criminal case no. 60027 under Articles 30 and 105 of the Russian Criminal Code (attempted murder).

7. On 5 and 6 April 2006 the investigators questioned an officer from the checkpoint and an applicant’s relative.

8. On 2 May 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned.

9. On 5 April 2007 the investigators suspended the investigation for the failure to identify the perpetrators. It does not appear that any investigative activity or contact between the applicant and the authorities occurred until 2014 – see below.

10. On 6 March 2014 the applicant asked the investigators for a progress report on the investigation, but to no avail. The investigation was resumed on 4 September 2014.

11. The applicant complained to the Naurskiy District Court that the investigation had been suspended prematurely. On 21 October 2014 the Chechnya Supreme Court left the complaint unexamined as the investigation had already been resumed.

12. In March 2014 the applicant claimed damages for ineffective investigation of the attack on him by State agents. In May 2014 the Chechnya Supreme Court rejected his claim at final instance as in the absence of results of the criminal investigation the State’s responsibility had not been proven.

13. For a summary of the relevant domestic regulations, see Kosumova v. Russia , no. 2527/09, §§ 66-72, 16 October 2014.

COMPLAINT

14. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that he had been attacked by State agents and that the investigation into the matter had been ineffective.

THE LAW

15. The Government submitted that the applicant failed to comply with the six-month requirement as he should have realised long before lodging of his application that the investigation had been ineffective.

16. According to the applicant, the delay in the lodging of his application was due to his mental suffering after the wounding. Besides, such a serious incident should have been investigated effectively by the authorities of their own motion.

17. For a summary of the relevant principles see Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, §§ 34-40, 31 May 2016.

18. After the opening of the criminal case in April 2006, the applicant was granted victim status and gave evidence to the investigators. Then, the investigation was suspended between 5 April 2007 and 4 September 2014. In March 2014, shortly before lodging his civil claim for damages, the applicant had requested information on the progress of the case. No other documents were furnished to show the progress in the proceedings or his contact with the investigators during that seven-year suspension.

19. The Court notes, first, that the applicant complained of an isolated incident, and not of a major military action (see, by contrast, Abuyeva and Others v. Russia , no. 27065/05, § 179, 2 December 2010), a situation in which the applicants could have waited longer for the results of the investigation without themselves taking the initiative and seeking information about the proceedings. However, in the present case the investigation was ongoing for almost nine years at the time of lodging of the application and no meaningful steps had been taken by the authorities. Essentially, after 2007, there was no new evidence or information appearing which would provide the applicant with some realistic prospect that the investigation would be effective and capable of elucidating the circumstances of the attack on him. There is also no evidence he attempted to request any such information of his own motion at any time during such a significant period without any news.

20. In view of the above, the Court finds that following the suspension of the investigation in April 2007, the applicant should have concluded a considerable time beforehand, and certainly more than six months before the application was lodged, that the investigation was ineffective. The Court does not find that his request for information in 2014, just a few months prior to his application to the Court, is capable of leading it to a different conclusion (see, mutatis mutandis , Filippova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 16233/08, § 31, 14 November 2017; and for a similar example, Dashuyeva v Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 5725/11, § 48, 19 May 2020).

21. In view of the above, the Government’s objection as to the admissibility of the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention on the basis of the expiry of the six-month time-limit should be upheld, and the application should be declared inadmissible.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 October 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma Deputy Registrar President