THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KULYAMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 19338/20 and 2 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 June 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kulyamina and Others v. Russia,

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

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In application no. 14321/21, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

2. Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention

7.  The applicants complained that they or a close relative had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the authorities had failed to ensure an effective and timely investigation of their complaints (for further details see attached table). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.

8.  The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact arise in favour of applicants claiming to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, if they demonstrate that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted when they were under the control of the police or a similar authority. Moreover, in the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct diminishes human dignity and in principle constitutes a violation of the right enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006). The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force, which resulted in the applicants’ injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 62003/08 and 5 others, § 84, 5 July 2022).

9.  Furthermore, in the cases of  Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128‑40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities’ refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State’s failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention. This is all the more so in the cases where the authorities have refused to carry out an official inquiry into the applicants’ allegations (see the appended table).

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having also considered its case-law related to the standing of family members to bring complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of their late relatives (see Dzidzava v. Russia, no. 16363/07, § 47, 20 December 2012, and Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, §§ 105-06, 11 February 2016, for application no. 19338/20), the Court therefore finds these complaints admissible. It further finds that these complaints disclose a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention.

4. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  In application no. 14321/21, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Verzilov and Others v. Russia, no. 25276/15, § 101, 29 August 2023.

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  Having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, 13 October 2020, and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022), and making its assessment on an equitable basis (see Bouyid, cited above), the Court considers it appropriate to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, under both its substantive and procedural limbs, in respect of the applicants’ complaints about the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment to which they or a close relative had been subjected and about the lack of an effective investigation into these allegations;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.