Communicated on 27 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 33470/18 Mikhail Leonidovich KREYNDLIN and Others against Russia lodged on 5 July 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

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

The first nine applicants are volunteers who took part in a firefighting party of NGO Greenpeace in the Krasnodar Region in September 2016. The tenth applicant is the Russian branch of NGO Greenpeace, which financed and provided technical support for the party.

Between 5 and 13 September 2016 the party was based in the Krasnodar Region, slowing moving around in a few marked vehicles. The party was subjected to multiple police checks and also secretly surveilled from a drone.

On 7 September 2016, whilst being located in a hunting lodge in the village of Beysug of the Bryukhovestk District, the party was approached by two unidentified individuals, who demanded that they leave the location and threatened them with “adverse consequences”. On the same day, the director of the hunting lodge forced the party out of the lodge ’ s territory with reference to a request from “influential people”.

On 8 September 2016 the party camped in the vicinity of village Sadki of the Primorsko-Akhtarskiy District. A number of individuals wearing paramilitary uniform of a “Cossack” movement entered the camp, blocked its entrance and demanded the party to leave, labelling volunteers as traitors and daubing a word “Pindos” (derogatory for American) on a fence at the camp. The police officers who arrived at the scene again checked the party ’ s IDs and failed to react in any way to the presence of those individuals, the two groups acting apparently in concert. The applicants made video footage of the unidentified individuals and later transmitted them to the investigation.

In the night of 9 September 2016, at around 1 am, six unidentified individuals wearing masks and sports clothes and equipped with batons, knifes, pepper sprays, lamps, firearms and stunt explosives attacked the camp, beat up the first applicant, threatened the other eight of them and either destroyed or stole the party ’ s equipment: tents, mobile phones, car tyres and windshields.

On 12 September 2016 the forensic expert examined the first applicant and confirmed the presence on his body of the following injuries: scratches, bruises and a facial wound. It also noted that the nose may have been broken as well. It does not appear that other applicants received any visible injuries, but they submitted that they had experienced enormous stress and fear for their lives as a result of the attack.

(a) Proceedings before the Investigative Authority

On 9 September 2016 the Primorsko-Akhtarskiy District Department of the Interior initiated three separate sets of criminal proceedings in respect of the attack under Section 115 part 1 (“Intentional infliction of light harm to health”), Section 119 part 1 (“Threat to commit murder”), Section 158 part 1 (“Theft”) of the Criminal Code respectively.

It appears that thereafter the proceedings essentially stalled with the applicants receiving little to no information about what was happening.

Throughout 2016 and 2017 the applicants lodged multiple requests with the District Department of the Interior, trying to relaunch the investigative actions, requesting to obtain the status of victims, to characterise the actions of the attackers as “hate crimes”, to have the victims formally interviewed. It appears that most of their requests remained unanswered.

On 23 November 2017 the applicants sent yet another request for information about the progress in the case.

On 26 January 2018 the applicants received a response to the request in a letter dated 28 December 2017 from which they learned that after 20 June 2017 the investigation had been essentially discontinued.

(b) Court proceedings

The applicants brought court proceedings against the investigation, referring to its continued inaction.

These appeals were rejected at first instance by the Primorsko ‑ Akhtarskiy District Court on 20 October 2017. The first instance judgment was confirmed on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 24 April 2018.

In September 2017 the applicants brought court proceedings against the Krasnodar Regional Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of the town of Krasnodar, which rejected the applicant ’ s arguments on 3 April 2018. This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 22 May 2018.

Section 115 of the Criminal Code of Russia provides that intentional infliction of light bodily harm is punishable by up to four months of arrest. Part 2 of the same Section in subpart (b) specifies that the same acts motivated by political, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious hatred or enmity or enmity in respect of any social group are punishable by up to two years of imprisonment.

Section 119 of the Criminal Code of Russia provides that threat to murder is punishable by up to two years of imprisonment. Part 2 of the same Section specifies that the same acts motivated by political, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious hatred or enmity or enmity in respect of any social group are punishable by up to three years of imprisonment.

Section 158 of the Criminal Code of Russia provides that theft is punishable by up to two years of imprisonment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 13, 14 of the Convention, that the respondent State breached their positive obligation properly to react to the incident. They claim, in particular, that the attack was essentially a “hate crime” committed by a group with ties to the Government and motivated by enmity towards the U.S. origins of the tenth applicant, NGO Greenpeace, and subsequently covered up by the authorities which intentionally stalled and obstructed the investigation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the domestic authorities duly investigate and respond to the applicants ’ allegation that the attack of 9 September 2016 had a discriminatory character? The respondent Government are requested to provide a copy of the entire investigation file into the events.

2. In view of the answer to the above question, was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both provisions taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, on account of the reaction of the domestic authorities?

3. Was the existing Russian legal framework and in particular the respective provisions of the Criminal Code adequate for dealing with cases of such attacks? In view of the answer to this question, was there a violation of either Article 3 or Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13?

APPENDIX

Case name

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicants

Year of Birth

Place of Residence

Nationality

Represented by

Kreyndlin and Others v. Russia 33470/18

5/07/2018

Mikhail Leonidovich KREYNDLIN

1970Moscow

Russian

Grigoriy Vasilyevich KUKSIN

1980Moscow

Russian

Mariya Yuryevna VASILYEVA

1972Krasnoye Selo

Russian

So f ya Vladimirovna KOSACHEVA

1988Leningrad

Russian

VladimirYuryevich STROGANOV

1977Moscow

Russian

Andrey Vadimovich

SHUMILIN

1984Leningrad

Russian

Vasiliy Vladimirovich

AKSENOV

1990Leningrad

Russian

Darya Alekseyevna KALININA

1994Moscow

Russian

Maksim Sergeyevich REBECH E NKO

1992Karakol

Russian

Department of International NGO “Council Greenpeace”

Moscow

Aleksandr POPKOV, lawyer