Communicated on 28 August 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 33727/14 Nabi Abdulmuslimovich ATASHEV and Ada Magomedsharipovna ATASHEVA against Russia lodged on 16 April 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Nabi Abdulmuslimovich Atashev (“the first applicant”) and Ms Ada Magomedsharipovna Atasheva (“the second applicant”), are Russian nationals, who were born in 1982 and 1981 respectively , and live in Makhachkala, Republic of Dagestan. The applicants are a married couple. They are represented before the Court by Mr Sh. A. Isayev , a lawyer practising in Makhachkala .

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

A. Events of 26 September 2010

In the evening of 26 September 2010 the applicants and their daughter, who was a minor, were returning home from their friends ’ residence in their VAZ-21053 car.

At around 10 p.m. the first applicant saw a man in a white shirt standing on the side of the road with a gun in his hands. The first applicant believed him to be a member of an illegal armed group and continued driving. About ten metres further along the road he smelt a strong burning odour and realised that his car had been attacked by firearms. He got out of his car, put his hands up and shouted that he was unarmed and his wife and child were in the car. At that moment the man in the white shirt shot him in the leg. The first applicant was bleeding and fell to the ground under a tree near his car. The man in the white shirt came up and pointed his gun at the first applicant. Two armed men in camouflage uniform and wearing bulletproof vests came up to the applicants ’ car and opened a rear door. The second applicant could not get out of the car because she had been wounded in her leg.

The armed men, who turned out to be police officers, took the applicants to the nearest hospital where they received medical attention. That evening the applicants were taken to the emergency hospital in Makhachkala where both of them underwent surgery. The first applicant stayed in hospital until 8 October 2010. The second applicant was discharged on 5 October 2010.

According to medical certificate no. 3292 issued on 30 November 2010 the first applicant had an entry wound from a bullet to his upper left leg, a splintered and fractured bone due to a bullet to the same leg and multiple foreign bodies in soft tissue also in the same leg. The certificate stated that those injuries were of medium severity.

According to medical certificate no. 3277 issued on 1 December 2010 the second applicant had an entry wound from a bullet to the upper left leg, a splintered and fractured bone due to a bullet to the same area and multiple foreign bodies in soft tissue in that leg. The certificate stated that those injuries were of medium severity.

B. Investigation into the events of 26 September 2010

On 27 September 2010 the senior investigator (“the investigator”) with the Kizilyurtovskiy Inter-district Investigation Department (“the investigation department”) reported to the head of that department that in the course of operational search activities carried out on 26 September 2010, police officers Shakh ., Shikh . and G. had used firearms in order to stop the applicants ’ car and injured them. The police officers ’ actions disclosed elements of a criminal offence punishable under Article 286 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code (abuse of office). Therefore, the report of a crime had to be registered and an investigation had to be carried out into those events in accordance with Articles 144-145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“ CCrP ”).

On 7 October 2010 the investigator refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers, having found that there had been no corpus delicti in their actions. The applicants were not informed of that decision.

On 18 October 2010 the first applicant complained to the prosecutor of the Republic of Dagestan that the investigating authorities had not taken any decision as regards the events of 26 September 2010.

On 10 November 2010 the decision of 7 October 2010 was overturned.

On 18 November 2010 the investigator interviewed police officers G. and Shakh . regarding the events of 26 September 2010. Police officer G. submitted, in particular, that in order to stop the applicants ’ car he had fired several shots with his gun at the car ’ s wheels. Police officer Shakh . submitted that he had fired one shot with his submachine gun at the car ’ s wheels.

On 20 November 2010 the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings.

On 7 December 2010 the first applicant complained to the head of the investigation department about the decision of 20 November 2010.

On 21 December 2010 the first applicant complained to the head of the investigation department that his complaint of 7 December 2010 had not been examined.

On 15 July 2011 the applicants complained to the Kizilyurtovskiy Town Court, Republic of Dagestan (“the Town Court”), under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the inaction of the investigating authorities.

On 11 August 2011 the head of the investigating department overturned the decision of 20 November 2010 and remitted the matter for additional verification to another investigator.

On 12 August 2011 the Town Court terminated the proceedings regarding the applicants ’ complaint on the grounds that the decision of 20 November 2010 had been overturned.

On 26 August 2011 the investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the police officers on suspicion of criminal offences punishable under Article 167 § 2 (infliction of damage to property) and Article 286 § 3 (abuse of power). The case file was allocated number 17468.

The investigator established, in particular, that on 26 September 2010 the police of Kumtorkalinskiy District, Republic of Dagestan, had carried out operational search activities in order to identify and stop two cars ( a VAZ ‑ 2109 and a VAZ-2107) which earlier that day had been involved in an attack on police officers. Police officers Shakh ., Shikh . and G., had overstepped their powers when they had attempted to stop the applicants ’ car (a VAZ-21053). In particular, in breach of section 15 of the Police Act of 2011 they had used their service weapons causing injuries to the applicants and damage to their car.

On 17 September 2011 the applicants were granted victim status.

In the beginning of 2013 the applicants found out that on 26 May 2012 the investigation had been suspended.

In March 2013 the applicants lodged a complaint under Article 125 of the CCrP with the Town Court.

On 15 March 2013 the head of the investigation department overturned the decision of 26 May 2012 to suspend the investigation.

On 18 March 2013 the Town Court terminated the proceedings regarding the applicants ’ complaint on the grounds that the decision of 26 May 2012 had been overturned.

On 17 April 2013 the investigator again suspended the proceedings. However, the applicants were not informed of that decision.

On 28 June 2013 the applicants ’ representative asked the authorities to provide him with a copy of the decision of 17 April 2013.

On 16 October 2013 the investigator forwarded to the applicants a copy of that decision.

On 7 March 2014 the applicants again lodged a complaint with the Town Court regarding the investigator ’ s alleged inaction.

On 13 March 2014 the prosecutor of the Kumtorkalinskiy District overturned the decision of 17 April 2013.

On 14 March 2014 the Town Court terminated the proceedings regarding the applicants ’ complaint on the grounds that the decision of 17 April 2013 had been overturned.

On 26 March 2014 the applicants ’ representative gained access to the materials in the criminal case-file.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that police officers used unnecessary, potentially lethal force against them and the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into that incident.

They also complain, under Article 13, that they did not have an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2.

QUE STIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the force applied by the police officers to the applicants on 26 September 2010 o f such a nature or degree as to bring the facts within the scope of the safeguard s afforded by Article 2 of the Convention (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55 , ECHR 2004 ‑ XI , and SaÅ¡o Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 49382/06 , § § 36-38 , ECHR 2012 (extracts) ) ?

2. If so, has the applicant s ’ ri ght to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particula r, was it absolutely necessary for the purposes of Article 2 § 2 to resort to potentially lethal force?

3. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104 , ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

4. If not, were t he applicants subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of the police on 26 September 2010 , in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

5. Having regard to the procedural protection from severe ill-treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

6 . Did the applicant s have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in criminal case no. 17468 instituted in connection with the events of 26 September 2010 .