Communicated on 5 July 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 71333/10 Ivan Nikolayevich LAVRENTYEV against Russia lodged on 31 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ivan Nikolayevich Lavrentyev , is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in the Vologda Region.

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

On 13 October 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He was allegedly beaten by the police during the arrest while he was lying on the ground. It follows from the medical certificate of 14 October 2008 that the applicant had numerous bruises and abrasions on his right leg, his back and the back of his head.

The applicant complained about ill-treatment to the prosecutor ’ s office of the Vologda Region. The prosecutor ’ s office issued numerous refusals to open criminal proceedings which were all subsequently annulled. The applicant was not given copies of these decisions, except one dated 3 August 2009. After the applicant challenged the refusal to open criminal proceedings of 3 August 2009 before the Shekninskiy District Court of the Vologda Region, the prosecutor ’ s office annulled it on 9 April 2010 and ordered a further preliminary inquiry. The applicant was not informed about the subsequent decisions.

Meanwhile, on 9 March 2010 the Vologda Town Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to nine years ’ imprisonment. The court relied, among others, on audio recordings of the applicant ’ s telephone conversations and on information obtained through the monitoring of his communications data. The judgment mentioned that the interception of the applicant ’ s telephone communications had been authorised by the Tcherepovets Town Court on 21 November 2007. The applicant was however refused access to the interception authorisation on the ground that it was a confidential document.

On 6 May 2010 the Vologda Regional Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal. It held, among others, that the interception of the applicant ’ s telephone conversations had been authorised by a court and therefore lawful.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated upon arrest and that the investigation into his complaint about the ill-treatment was inadequate and ineffective.

The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the interception of his telephone communications and the monitoring of his communications data.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to ill ‑ treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, at the hands of police in the course of his arrest?

1. As regards the Government ’ s burden of proof

(a) have the domestic authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation on how the applicant ’ s injuries were caused (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V , and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII)? In particular,

- did the police officers report to their supervisor about the use of physical force or/and special means during the arrest (see Shamardakov v. Russia , no. 13810/04, § 133, 30 April 2015)?

- if so, did the reports provide detailed explanation about the circumstances of the applicant ’ s arrest, including the use of force against him (see Türkan v. Turkey , no. 33086/04, § 48, 18 September 2008)?

- does the Russian legislation and/or regulatory framework provide for an obligation to take an apprehended person without delay before a medical professional, notably with a view of recording the injuries sustained by an apprehended person prior or during the arrest?

- if so, was this obligation complied with in the present cases ( Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 34445/04, § 65, 11 January 2007)?

The Government are invited to produce documentary evidence, including the reports drawn up by police officers about the circumstances of the applicant ’ s arrest and the medical evidence.

2. As regards the necessity and the proportionality of the force used

(b) was the recourse to physical force made strictly necessary by the applicant ’ s own conduct (see Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan , no. 31805/06, § 49, 17 April 2012)? In particular,

- did the State agents plan the arrest operation in advance?

- did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest (see Rehbock v. Slovenia , no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII; Grigoryev v. Russia , no. 22663/06, § 83, 23 October 2012, Davitidze v. Russia , no. 8810/05, § 90, 30 May 2013, Minikayev v. Russia , no. 630/08, §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016 )?

2. Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment in the course of his arrest as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV, Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)? The Government are requested to provide copies of all decisions refusing to open criminal proceedings and other relevant documents relating to the offccial investigation.

3. Did the interception of the applicant ’ s telephone conversations and the monitoring of his communications data violate his right to respect for his private life and correspondence (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017)?