KHASHAGULGOVY v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 73006/17 • ECHR ID: 001-218250
Document date: May 31, 2022
- Inbound citations: 2
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 1
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 73006/17 Yakub Lakhanovich KHASHAGULGOV and Lors Sultan-Gireyevich KHASHAGULGOV against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 31 May 2022 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 application (no. 73006/17) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 September 2017 by two Russian nationals, Mr Yakub Khashagulgov and Mr Lors Khashagulgov, who were born in 1970 and 1993 respectively and live in Magas (“the applicants”), who were represented by Mr I.K. Gandarov, a lawyer practising in Sunzha;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), initially represented by Mr M. Galperin and Mr A. Fedorov, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov;
the parties’ observations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicants alleged that State agents had used unjustified lethal force against their relative Mr Sultan-Girey Khashagulgov and killed him during the search of their house in February 2013, while the first applicant had been tortured by State agents to extort evidence incriminating Mr Khashagulgov in the preparation of a terrorist attacks. According to the applicants, no investigation into the matter was carried out despite their consistent complaints to this end. Between September 2015 and October 2016 they lodged at least five official requests asking the authorities that an investigation be initiated into the events; all of them went unanswered. The applicants’ court appeals against the authorities’ inaction were finally rejected on 29 March 2017 for the failure to comply with procedural requirements. No investigation into either the death of Mr Khashagulgov or the first applicant’s torture has been opened to date.
2. Referring to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that State agents were responsible for the death of Mr Khashagulgov and the first applicant’s torture and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
3. The applicants contested the Government’s objection that the application was lodged out of time. According to the Government, given the lack of any kind of investigation into the matter for several years, the applicants should have realised ineffectiveness of their complaints before the domestic authorities sooner and should have lodged their application without the undue delay.
4. In the case at hand, even assuming that the complaints were properly substantiated, given that more than four and half years passed between the incidents and the lodging of the application, and keeping in mind the authorities’ consistent failure to reply to the applicants’ complaints about such serious matters, the Court concludes that the applicants should have realised long before 27 September 2017 that their efforts to induce the authorities to open either a preliminary inquiry or a fully-fledged criminal investigation were futile. There is nothing in the case file to suggest to the contrary. Considering the lack of a plausible explanation by the applicants for their delay in initiating the proceedings before the Court, the Court finds that the applicants’ complaint was lodged out of time (compare Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 275, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and, for a similar situation, Dashuyeva v. Russia [Committee] (dec.) no. 5725/11, §§ 47-48, 19 May 2020).
Loading citations...5. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention.
6. It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 23 June 2022.
Olga Chernishova Georgios A. Serghides Deputy Registrar President