THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 20506/07 and 11134/08 Sergey Vladimirovich OSANKIN against Russia and Svetlana Vasilyevna MAZURINA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President, Andreas Zünd, Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”) initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, 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 cases concern allegations of the applicants’ ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

2. On 20 April 2006 police officers apprehended the applicant and took him to a sobering-up centre in Chelyabinsk, and then to a police station, allegedly beating him on the way. According to the results of the medical examination carried out on 21 April 2006, the applicant sustained several injuries to his head and shoulders.

3. On 28 April 2006 the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about the alleged ill-treatment by the police. On 26 May 2006 the prosecutor rejected the complaint, relying on the results of an internal inquiry finding that the officers had acted in accordance with the law and had not exceeded their powers.

4. On 17 July 2006 the applicant brought civil proceedings for compensation, arguing, among other things, that on 20 April 2006 he had been beaten by the officers.

5. On 16 November 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court found that on 20 April 2006 the applicant, being intoxicated, had been swearing in the street, and after a brief conversation with the police officers, the applicant had been arrested. It further dismissed his claim on the ground that the applicant failed to produce evidence that he had been ill-treated by the police officers.

6. On 11 January and 1 February 2010, the investigating authorities again refused to open a criminal case.

7. On 23 April 2005 police officers in Bolshoy Kamen in the Primorskiy Region forced the applicant to go to a police station. The applicant sustained a brain concussion and bruises on her face.

8. On 24 April 2005 the applicant’s brother complained about the applicant’s ill-treatment to the authorities.

9. On 4 September 2008, 13 February and 3 April 2009 the investigator refused to open a criminal case into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment for the lack of evidence of crime.

10. On 15 July 2009 the applicant’s appeal lodged against the latest refusal before a domestic court was dismissed as unsubstantiated.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

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

12. The Court notes that the Government did not raise their objections as to the applicants’ non-compliance with the six-month rule. The Court has already held that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 102, 23 March 2016).

13. In the present cases, the Court observes that the applicants complained about their alleged ill-treatment to the authorities shortly after the impugned events.

14. The Court notes that the first applicant lodged his application with the Court within six months following the latest judgment delivered in civil proceedings, which he had initiated in respect of his alleged ill-treatment by police. However, a civil law claim in such cases is not an appropriate remedy for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies before applying to the Court (see Menesheva v. Russia , no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006 ‑ III). It therefore cannot be regarded as an “effective” remedy and cannot be taken into account for the calculation of a six-month period under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Court finds that in the present case the six-month period started running on 26 May 2006, the date when the applicant’s criminal-law complaint had been rejected, and consequently expired long before the applicant lodged his complaint with the Court in April 2007.

15. As to the round of investigation which had occurred in 2010 in the wake of the communication of the present complaint, its results do not call into question this conclusion, as no information was submitted to the Court demonstrating that this new round of proceedings was based on new facts which could have revived the procedural obligation under Article 3 and therefore bring the complaint within the scope of the Court’s temporal jurisdiction (see Afonichev v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 26344/06, § 55, 2 June 2015, with further references).

16. As regards the second applicant, it was her brother who complained about her alleged ill-treatment on 24 April 2005. She lodged her complaint with the Court on 11 February 2008, that is about three years after the events in question. The Court reiterates that the duty of diligence requires an applicant not only to apply promptly to domestic authorities, but also obliges to undertake elementary steps and seek information from the relevant authorities about the investigation’s progress or the lack thereof, as well as to lodge an application with the Court as soon as he or she realises, or ought to have realised, that the investigation is not effective (see Raush v. Russia (dec.), no. 17767/06, §§ 56 ‑ 67, 22 March 2016). Nothing in the case file demonstrates that, after her brother had lodged a complaint in 2005, she tried to enquire with the authorities about its outcome, or indicates reasons for her total inactivity for three years before applying to the Court.

17. The authorities’ failure to act, however unacceptable, could not have relieved the second applicant from her obligation to seek information about the lack of progress of the investigation. Even assuming that she considered available domestic remedies ineffective, she should have lodged her application with the Court on 24 October 2005 at the latest.

18. In the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applications have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

19. The Court notes that the first applicant also complained under Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, and Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention about his arrest on 20 April 2006 and detention until 21 April 2006. The applicant lodged his application more than six months after the events complained of. The Court therefore finds his complaint inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 June 2022.

Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Application name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

20506/07

Osankin v. Russia

16/04/2007

Sergey Vladimirovich OSANKIN 1971 Chelyabinsk Russian

2.

11134/08

Mazurina v. Russia

11/02/2008

Svetlana Vasilyevna MAZURINA 1962 Vladivostok Russian

Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA