THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 72665/16 and 46889/18 Danil Nikolayevich PANKOV against Russia and Sergey Vladimirovich GRIGORYEV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 October 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 applications lodged on 11 November 2016 and 15 September 2018 respectively,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant in application no. 46889/18,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant in the first case, Mr Danil Nikolayevich Pankov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1979 and is detained in St Petersburg. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y.V. Yefremova and Mr U. Sommer, lawyers practising in Moscow and Köln.

2. The applicant in the second case, Mr Sergey Vladimirovich Grigoryev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Kazan. He was represented before the Court by Mr I.N. Sholokhov, a lawyer practising in Kazan.

3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov.

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

5 . On 13 March 2014 at around 4 a.m. police officers allegedly beat the applicant when arresting him in St Petersburg on suspicion of theft.

6 . On 17 October 2014, that is more than seven months later, the applicant complained about the beating for the first time. He did not refer to any medical documents or other evidence.

7. Between 5 June 2015 and 25 February 2017 the investigative authorities dismissed several applicant’s complaints as unsubstantiated.

8. On 10 April 2017 at around 2.20 p.m. police officers arrested the applicant in Kazan on suspicion of kidnapping and extortion. At a police department they allegedly stifled him with a plastic bag and applied electric shocks to legs and buttocks for several hours.

9 . On the following day a medical examination report noted “contusion of the knee joints”. Subsequently, the doctor who had drawn up the report clarified that the he had merely recorded the applicant’s complaint but not a diagnosis. Additionally, according to the doctor, the applicant explained during the examination that he had stumbled and fallen on the knees shortly before his arrest. The doctor concluded that, in fact, there had been no signs of the said injury.

10 . On the same day the applicant was provided with a lawyer.

11 . Two other medical examinations conducted on the same day and on 12 April 2017 established no injuries.

12 . On 12 April 2017 the applicant was transferred to a detention facility.

13 . On 1 March 2018, that is almost eleven months after the alleged events, the applicant’s sister complained about the ill-treatment.

14 . On 3 March 2018 a forensic medical examination concluded that there had been no signs of any injuries on the applicant’s body since his arrest. It found unsubstantiated the alleged diagnosis of “contusion of the knee joints”.

15 . On 9 March 2018 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings. He found the complaint unfounded referring to the explanations of the doctor and the applicant and the medical reports indicating no injuries (see paragraphs 9, 11 and 14 above). He finally noted that the applicant had not complained about the alleged ill ‑ treatment at any moment during the proceedings (see paragraph 13 above). On 20 June 2018 the refusal was annulled and an additional inquiry was ordered.

16 . On 16 July 2018 another forensic medical examination confirmed the findings of the initial examination (see paragraph 6 above). It particularly found no signs of electrical shocks injuries.

17. On 28 January 2019 the investigator issued the latest refusal to open criminal proceedings. He largely referred to the grounds already relied on in the refusal of 9 March 2018 (see paragraph 15 above).

Relevant domestic law

18. For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014, and Ryabtsev v. Russia , no. 13642/06, §§ 48 ‑ 52, 14 November 2013.

COMPLAINTS

19. Referring to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained of their ill‑treatment and of the lack of an effective investigation in that respect.

THE LAW

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

21. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and that the ensuing investigation had not been effective. They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy in respect of their complaints of ill-treatment. The relevant parts of the Convention provisions read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment ...”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”

22. The Government maintained the conclusions of the domestic inquiries.

23. Mr Pankov failed to submit his observations in due time. Mr Grigoryev maintained his complaints, claiming that he had sustained his injuries as a result of his ill ‑ treatment by the police officers.

(a) Mr Pankov

24. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, among others, Keller v. Russia , no. 6824/04, § 114, 17 October 2013). To assess such evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 82, 28 September 2015).

25. The Court notes in this regard that Mr Pankov has not furnished any evidence in support of his allegations that he was subjected to ill‑treatment (see paragraph 6 above). Furthermore, his description of the events submitted to the domestic authorities and this Court is couched in highly general terms (see Igoshin v. Russia , no. 21062/07, § 48, 21 June 2016). His submissions were rather confined to a broad allegation of having been beaten by police officers without providing essential detail (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above). The complaint about alleged ill-treatment was lodged with a delay of over seven months, for which no explanations have been submitted (see paragraph 6 above). In the absence of an arguable claim of ill-treatment the Court does not find that the authorities’ obligation to carry out an effective investigation were engaged.

26. The Court thus finds that the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and the alleged lack of effective investigation are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

(b) Mr Grigoryev

27. The Court observes that, once alerted of the ill‑treatment complaint, the investigator swiftly launched an inquiry (see paragraph 14 above) and subsequently found the applicant’s allegations unfounded. He noted that Mr Grigoryev complained that he had been subjected to suffocation and electric shocks for several hours. However, a number of medical examinations did not reveal any injuries (see paragraphs 11, 14 and 16 above). The only medical report which had recorded “contusion of the knee joints” was eventually refuted with subsequent forensic examinations (see paragraphs 14 and 16 above) and by the doctor who had drawn it up (see paragraph 9 above). Moreover, in his statements to the doctor the applicant apparently explained that he had sustained the alleged injuries accidentally and prior to the arrest.

28. The Court notes that Mr Grigoryev never complained about the inaccuracy of his medical records or the doctors’ refusal to record signs of ill-treatment (see Goryachkin v. Russia , no. 34636/09, § 65, 15 November 2016). It further observes that even if the diagnosis was correct, it would barely fit the alleged severe ill-treatment with electric shocks lasting for hours (see Andreyevskiy v. Russia , no. 1750/03, § 62, 29 January 2009). In such circumstances, the applicant’s statements about alleged ill-treatment do not appear sufficiently credible.

29. The Court finally notes that Mr Grigoryev complained almost a year after the alleged events (see paragraph 13 above). The Court accepts that persons held in custody are often in a stressful situation and may be vulnerable to pressure. Nevertheless, Mr Grigoryev offered no explanation for the exceptional delay in raising the issue before the authorities, for example after he had been transferred to a detention facility and received access to legal advice (see, respectively, paragraphs 10 and 12 above) (see Andreyevskiy, cited above, § 55).

30. In the light of the above the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints about the beatings and the authorities’ response to them are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 18 November 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma Deputy Registrar President