I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in T.V. v. RUSSIA.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF T.V. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 31323/19 and 4 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
15 May 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of T.V. and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 April 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. 3. As regards application no. 31323/19, the applicant and the Government each lodged written observations. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Equal Rights Trust, Equality Now and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), non-governmental organisations based in London, United Kingdom, which had been given leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 7. 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). 8. The applicants complained principally of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals, consisting of repeated acts of domestic violence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Court reiterates that the issue of domestic violence, which can take various forms – ranging from physical assault to sexual, economic, emotional or verbal abuse – transcends the circumstances of an individual case. It is a general problem which affects, to a varying degree, all member States and which does not always surface since it often takes place within personal relationships or closed circuits and affects different family members, although women make up an overwhelming majority of victims. The particular vulnerability of the victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection have been emphasised in a number of international instruments and the Court’s case‐law (see, among other authorities, Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§71-72, 9 July 2019). 10. The Court further reiterates that the absence of any direct State responsibility for acts of violence that meet the condition of severity such as to engage Article 3 of the Convention does not absolve the State from all obligations under this provision. The obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals. Admittedly, it goes without saying that the obligation cannot be interpreted as requiring the State to guarantee through its legal system that inhuman or degrading treatment is never inflicted by one individual on another or, if it has been, that criminal proceedings should necessarily lead to a particular sanction. What Article 3 does require is that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into the alleged ill-treatment even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals. For the investigation to be regarded as “effective”, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but one of means. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and so on. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention where the effectiveness of the official investigation has been at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time. Consideration has been given to the opening of investigations, delays in taking statements and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see, among other authorities, Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, §§ 98-100, 17 December 2009). 11. In the leading case of Volodina, cited above, the Court previously found a violation in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case. 12. 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 regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigations in response to the allegations of domestic violence failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness (see the appended table). 13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb. 14. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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, and in particular having regard to the nature of the legal issues raised by the present applications, the Court considers it necessary to stress that it has already had an opportunity to examine the Russian legal framework which does not define domestic violence whether as a separate offence or an aggravating element of other offences and establishes a minimum threshold of gravity of injuries required for launching public prosecution. It has already concluded that such a legal framework fell short of the requirements inherent in the State’s positive obligation to establish and apply effectively a system punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims (see Volodina, cited above, §§ 78-91, with further references). The Court also found that the continued failure to adopt legislation to combat domestic violence and the absence of any form of restraining or protection orders clearly demonstrated that the authorities’ actions were not a simple failure or delay in dealing with violence against the applicants but flowed from their reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness and extent of the problem of domestic violence in Russia and its discriminatory effect on women. By tolerating, for many years, a climate which was conducive to domestic violence, the Russian authorities failed to create conditions for substantive gender equality that would enable women to live free from fear of ill-treatment or attacks on their physical integrity and to benefit from the equal protection of the law (see Volodina, cited above, §§ 109-33). The Court sees no reason to depart from these findings in the present case and therefore concludes that the applicants’ complaints indicated in the appended table also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Volodina, cited above, §§ 78-91, and 109‐33, concerning the State’s failure to comply with their positive obligations to establish and apply in practice an adequate legal framework punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims; and Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, §§ 63-74, 31 July 2012, concerning the State’s failure to ensure adequate protection of the applicant’s private life). 15. In view of the above finding, the Court considers that there is no need deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by the applicants under various Convention provisions. 16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Tyagunova, cited above, §§ 79-80), the Court considers it reasonable 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,
(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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 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
(ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Factual information, including medical evidence and domestic proceedings
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
31323/19
03/06/2019
T.V. 1989

Karacheva Olga Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
On 02/02/2018 and 03/02/2018 the applicant’s ex-husband E. assaulted the applicant at her home. He repeatedly hit her and raped her. The applicant underwent a 12-days’ treatment in a hospital. On 05/02/2018 the police opened criminal investigation against E. on the charges of death threats and infliction of serious bodily harm to the applicant. On 14/03/2018 the applicant reported the rape. The police investigator repeatedly refused to open criminal investigation discerning no indications of rape. The applicant’s appeals were to no avail. The latest relevant decision was taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 26/12/2018. On 24/12/2018 the justice of the peace found E. guilty of battery, infliction of bodily harm and death threats and sentenced him to 2.5 years’ restriction of liberty. Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),

Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9 July 2019)
Art. 8 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention – the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 92, 9 July 2019; Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, §§ 59-74, 31 July 2012);

Art. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 125-33, 9 July 2019)

12,500,
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage,

and

850,
in costs and expenses
26468/21
30/04/2021
Valentina Nikolayevna TUMANOVA
1971

Nemova Mariya Igorevna
Moscow
(1) On 27/09/2020 the applicant complained to the police that her husband M. had beaten her up on the same day. On 03/10/2020 the police refused to open criminal investigation relying on M.’s statement denying any beatings, and also citing the lack of any witnesses. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow Regional Court on 11/05/2021. (2) On 02/10/2020 the applicant complained to the police that M. had damaged her car (he had torn off the side view mirrors, smashed the player and damaged the hood and the boot) and had stolen some tools. On 09/10/2020 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings relying on M.’s statement that the car and tools had been joint spousal property. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 11/05/2021. (3) On 31/10/2020 M. sneaked into the applicant’s house. He beat and stabbed her inflicting at least 40 knife wounds on her face and chest. On 30/04/2021 the Ramenki Town Court of the Moscow Region found M. guilty of having caused serious bodily harm to the applicant and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment. Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),

Limited scope of the initial inquiry and failure to secure evidence (Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, § 69, 31 July 2012; and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 96, 9 July 2019)
Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500,
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage,

and

850,
in costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the representative
31305/21
21/05/2021
Yevgeniya Vladimirovna CHERNYSHOVA
1986

Frolova Valentina Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 28/06/2019 the applicant complained to the police that her former husband Ch. harassed her and threatened to kill her. She submitted printouts of his text and voice messages to her. When questioned by the police, Ch. denied those allegations. On 07/07/2019 a police investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against Ch. relying on the latter’s statement. On 08/07/2019 the prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered further inquiry. The police repeatedly refused to open criminal investigation. Each time the prosecutor quashed the decisions, finding the inquiry to be incomplete. On 03/08/2020 the prosecutor upheld the police investigator’s findings discerning no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations. The applicant’s complaint to the court was to no avail. The latest relevant decision was taken by the Moscow City Court on 14/12/2020. Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),

Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Limited scope of the initial inquiry and failure to secure evidence (Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, § 69, 31 July 2012; and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 96, 9 July 2019)
Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
37609/21
14/07/2021
Galina Ivanovna BASKAKOVA
1964

Nemova Mariya Igorevna
Moscow
On 08/09/2018 the applicant’s husband B. beat up the applicant (on 18/02/2019 the applicant and B. divorced. They continued to live in the same flat. Their adult daughter and B.’s mother also lived in that flat). On 18/09/2019 the justice of the peace of court circuit no. 325, Medvedkovo, Moscow, in the administrative proceedings, found B. guilty of battery and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of RUB 7,000. On 17/01/2021 B. beat the applicant up. The police refused to institute criminal proceedings against B. and on 21/06/2021 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against B. by way of private prosecution. There is no further information about the outcome of the proceedings. Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9 July 2019)
Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
42203/21
16/08/2021

A.A.
2009

Savvina Tatyana Yuryevna
Moscow
The applicant’s biological father, without informing the applicant’s mother, arranged that the applicant undergo female genital mutilation (FMG) in a private clinic on 22/06/2019. On 28/01/2022 the justice of the peace of court circuit of the Republic of Ingushetia found the doctor who had performed FGM guilty of having caused minor bodily harm and ordered her to pay a fine of RUB 30,000. The defendant was relieved from paying the fine in view of the expiration of the prescription period. The applicant appealed. On 08/04/2022 the Magas District Court of the Ingushetia Republic quashed the conviction and remitted the matter for a fresh consideration. According to the applicant, the proceedings are pending. Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9 July 2019),

Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Failure to address the victims’ allegations (hate crimes, death threats, etc.) (Kreyndlin and Others v. Russia, no. 33470/18, §§ 58-59, 31 January 2023; and Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 119, 14 December 2021)
Art. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 125-33, 9 July 2019),

Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500,
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage,

and

850,
in costs and expenses

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF T.V. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 31323/19 and 4 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
15 May 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of T.V. and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 April 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. 3. As regards application no. 31323/19, the applicant and the Government each lodged written observations. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Equal Rights Trust, Equality Now and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), non-governmental organisations based in London, United Kingdom, which had been given leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 7. 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). 8. The applicants complained principally of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals, consisting of repeated acts of domestic violence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Court reiterates that the issue of domestic violence, which can take various forms – ranging from physical assault to sexual, economic, emotional or verbal abuse – transcends the circumstances of an individual case. It is a general problem which affects, to a varying degree, all member States and which does not always surface since it often takes place within personal relationships or closed circuits and affects different family members, although women make up an overwhelming majority of victims. The particular vulnerability of the victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection have been emphasised in a number of international instruments and the Court’s case‐law (see, among other authorities, Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§71-72, 9 July 2019). 10. The Court further reiterates that the absence of any direct State responsibility for acts of violence that meet the condition of severity such as to engage Article 3 of the Convention does not absolve the State from all obligations under this provision. The obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals. Admittedly, it goes without saying that the obligation cannot be interpreted as requiring the State to guarantee through its legal system that inhuman or degrading treatment is never inflicted by one individual on another or, if it has been, that criminal proceedings should necessarily lead to a particular sanction. What Article 3 does require is that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into the alleged ill-treatment even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals. For the investigation to be regarded as “effective”, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but one of means. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and so on. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention where the effectiveness of the official investigation has been at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time. Consideration has been given to the opening of investigations, delays in taking statements and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see, among other authorities, Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, §§ 98-100, 17 December 2009). 11. In the leading case of Volodina, cited above, the Court previously found a violation in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case. 12. 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 regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigations in response to the allegations of domestic violence failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness (see the appended table). 13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb. 14. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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, and in particular having regard to the nature of the legal issues raised by the present applications, the Court considers it necessary to stress that it has already had an opportunity to examine the Russian legal framework which does not define domestic violence whether as a separate offence or an aggravating element of other offences and establishes a minimum threshold of gravity of injuries required for launching public prosecution. It has already concluded that such a legal framework fell short of the requirements inherent in the State’s positive obligation to establish and apply effectively a system punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims (see Volodina, cited above, §§ 78-91, with further references). The Court also found that the continued failure to adopt legislation to combat domestic violence and the absence of any form of restraining or protection orders clearly demonstrated that the authorities’ actions were not a simple failure or delay in dealing with violence against the applicants but flowed from their reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness and extent of the problem of domestic violence in Russia and its discriminatory effect on women. By tolerating, for many years, a climate which was conducive to domestic violence, the Russian authorities failed to create conditions for substantive gender equality that would enable women to live free from fear of ill-treatment or attacks on their physical integrity and to benefit from the equal protection of the law (see Volodina, cited above, §§ 109-33). The Court sees no reason to depart from these findings in the present case and therefore concludes that the applicants’ complaints indicated in the appended table also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Volodina, cited above, §§ 78-91, and 109‐33, concerning the State’s failure to comply with their positive obligations to establish and apply in practice an adequate legal framework punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims; and Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, §§ 63-74, 31 July 2012, concerning the State’s failure to ensure adequate protection of the applicant’s private life). 15. In view of the above finding, the Court considers that there is no need deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by the applicants under various Convention provisions. 16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Tyagunova, cited above, §§ 79-80), the Court considers it reasonable 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,
(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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 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
(ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Factual information, including medical evidence and domestic proceedings
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
31323/19
03/06/2019
T.V. 1989

Karacheva Olga Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
On 02/02/2018 and 03/02/2018 the applicant’s ex-husband E. assaulted the applicant at her home. He repeatedly hit her and raped her. The applicant underwent a 12-days’ treatment in a hospital. On 05/02/2018 the police opened criminal investigation against E. on the charges of death threats and infliction of serious bodily harm to the applicant. On 14/03/2018 the applicant reported the rape. The police investigator repeatedly refused to open criminal investigation discerning no indications of rape. The applicant’s appeals were to no avail. The latest relevant decision was taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 26/12/2018. On 24/12/2018 the justice of the peace found E. guilty of battery, infliction of bodily harm and death threats and sentenced him to 2.5 years’ restriction of liberty. Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),

Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9 July 2019)
Art. 8 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention – the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 92, 9 July 2019; Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, §§ 59-74, 31 July 2012);

Art. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 125-33, 9 July 2019)

12,500,
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage,

and

850,
in costs and expenses
26468/21
30/04/2021
Valentina Nikolayevna TUMANOVA
1971

Nemova Mariya Igorevna
Moscow
(1) On 27/09/2020 the applicant complained to the police that her husband M. had beaten her up on the same day. On 03/10/2020 the police refused to open criminal investigation relying on M.’s statement denying any beatings, and also citing the lack of any witnesses. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow Regional Court on 11/05/2021. (2) On 02/10/2020 the applicant complained to the police that M. had damaged her car (he had torn off the side view mirrors, smashed the player and damaged the hood and the boot) and had stolen some tools. On 09/10/2020 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings relying on M.’s statement that the car and tools had been joint spousal property. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 11/05/2021. (3) On 31/10/2020 M. sneaked into the applicant’s house. He beat and stabbed her inflicting at least 40 knife wounds on her face and chest. On 30/04/2021 the Ramenki Town Court of the Moscow Region found M. guilty of having caused serious bodily harm to the applicant and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment. Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),

Limited scope of the initial inquiry and failure to secure evidence (Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, § 69, 31 July 2012; and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 96, 9 July 2019)
Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500,
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage,

and

850,
in costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the representative
31305/21
21/05/2021
Yevgeniya Vladimirovna CHERNYSHOVA
1986

Frolova Valentina Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 28/06/2019 the applicant complained to the police that her former husband Ch. harassed her and threatened to kill her. She submitted printouts of his text and voice messages to her. When questioned by the police, Ch. denied those allegations. On 07/07/2019 a police investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against Ch. relying on the latter’s statement. On 08/07/2019 the prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered further inquiry. The police repeatedly refused to open criminal investigation. Each time the prosecutor quashed the decisions, finding the inquiry to be incomplete. On 03/08/2020 the prosecutor upheld the police investigator’s findings discerning no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations. The applicant’s complaint to the court was to no avail. The latest relevant decision was taken by the Moscow City Court on 14/12/2020. Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),

Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Limited scope of the initial inquiry and failure to secure evidence (Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, § 69, 31 July 2012; and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 96, 9 July 2019)
Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
37609/21
14/07/2021
Galina Ivanovna BASKAKOVA
1964

Nemova Mariya Igorevna
Moscow
On 08/09/2018 the applicant’s husband B. beat up the applicant (on 18/02/2019 the applicant and B. divorced. They continued to live in the same flat. Their adult daughter and B.’s mother also lived in that flat). On 18/09/2019 the justice of the peace of court circuit no. 325, Medvedkovo, Moscow, in the administrative proceedings, found B. guilty of battery and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of RUB 7,000. On 17/01/2021 B. beat the applicant up. The police refused to institute criminal proceedings against B. and on 21/06/2021 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against B. by way of private prosecution. There is no further information about the outcome of the proceedings. Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9 July 2019)
Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
42203/21
16/08/2021

A.A.
2009

Savvina Tatyana Yuryevna
Moscow
The applicant’s biological father, without informing the applicant’s mother, arranged that the applicant undergo female genital mutilation (FMG) in a private clinic on 22/06/2019. On 28/01/2022 the justice of the peace of court circuit of the Republic of Ingushetia found the doctor who had performed FGM guilty of having caused minor bodily harm and ordered her to pay a fine of RUB 30,000. The defendant was relieved from paying the fine in view of the expiration of the prescription period. The applicant appealed. On 08/04/2022 the Magas District Court of the Ingushetia Republic quashed the conviction and remitted the matter for a fresh consideration. According to the applicant, the proceedings are pending. Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9 July 2019),

Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Failure to address the victims’ allegations (hate crimes, death threats, etc.) (Kreyndlin and Others v. Russia, no. 33470/18, §§ 58-59, 31 January 2023; and Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 119, 14 December 2021)
Art. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 125-33, 9 July 2019),

Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500,
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage,

and

850,
in costs and expenses

No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Factual information, including medical evidence and domestic proceedings
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
31323/19
03/06/2019
T.V. 1989

Karacheva Olga Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
On 02/02/2018 and 03/02/2018 the applicant’s ex-husband E. assaulted the applicant at her home. He repeatedly hit her and raped her. The applicant underwent a 12-days’ treatment in a hospital. On 05/02/2018 the police opened criminal investigation against E. on the charges of death threats and infliction of serious bodily harm to the applicant. On 14/03/2018 the applicant reported the rape. The police investigator repeatedly refused to open criminal investigation discerning no indications of rape. The applicant’s appeals were to no avail. The latest relevant decision was taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 26/12/2018. On 24/12/2018 the justice of the peace found E. guilty of battery, infliction of bodily harm and death threats and sentenced him to 2.5 years’ restriction of liberty. Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),

Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9 July 2019)
Art. 8 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention – the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 92, 9 July 2019; Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, §§ 59-74, 31 July 2012);

Art. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 125-33, 9 July 2019)

12,500,
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage,

and

850,
in costs and expenses
26468/21
30/04/2021
Valentina Nikolayevna TUMANOVA
1971

Nemova Mariya Igorevna
Moscow
(1) On 27/09/2020 the applicant complained to the police that her husband M. had beaten her up on the same day. On 03/10/2020 the police refused to open criminal investigation relying on M.’s statement denying any beatings, and also citing the lack of any witnesses. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow Regional Court on 11/05/2021. (2) On 02/10/2020 the applicant complained to the police that M. had damaged her car (he had torn off the side view mirrors, smashed the player and damaged the hood and the boot) and had stolen some tools. On 09/10/2020 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings relying on M.’s statement that the car and tools had been joint spousal property. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 11/05/2021. (3) On 31/10/2020 M. sneaked into the applicant’s house. He beat and stabbed her inflicting at least 40 knife wounds on her face and chest. On 30/04/2021 the Ramenki Town Court of the Moscow Region found M. guilty of having caused serious bodily harm to the applicant and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment. Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),

Limited scope of the initial inquiry and failure to secure evidence (Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, § 69, 31 July 2012; and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 96, 9 July 2019)
Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500,
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage,

and

850,
in costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the representative
31305/21
21/05/2021
Yevgeniya Vladimirovna CHERNYSHOVA
1986

Frolova Valentina Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 28/06/2019 the applicant complained to the police that her former husband Ch. harassed her and threatened to kill her. She submitted printouts of his text and voice messages to her. When questioned by the police, Ch. denied those allegations. On 07/07/2019 a police investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against Ch. relying on the latter’s statement. On 08/07/2019 the prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered further inquiry. The police repeatedly refused to open criminal investigation. Each time the prosecutor quashed the decisions, finding the inquiry to be incomplete. On 03/08/2020 the prosecutor upheld the police investigator’s findings discerning no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations. The applicant’s complaint to the court was to no avail. The latest relevant decision was taken by the Moscow City Court on 14/12/2020. Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),

Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Limited scope of the initial inquiry and failure to secure evidence (Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, § 69, 31 July 2012; and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 96, 9 July 2019)
Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
37609/21
14/07/2021
Galina Ivanovna BASKAKOVA
1964

Nemova Mariya Igorevna
Moscow
On 08/09/2018 the applicant’s husband B. beat up the applicant (on 18/02/2019 the applicant and B. divorced. They continued to live in the same flat. Their adult daughter and B.’s mother also lived in that flat). On 18/09/2019 the justice of the peace of court circuit no. 325, Medvedkovo, Moscow, in the administrative proceedings, found B. guilty of battery and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of RUB 7,000. On 17/01/2021 B. beat the applicant up. The police refused to institute criminal proceedings against B. and on 21/06/2021 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against B. by way of private prosecution. There is no further information about the outcome of the proceedings. Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9 July 2019)
Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500
42203/21
16/08/2021

A.A.
2009

Savvina Tatyana Yuryevna
Moscow
The applicant’s biological father, without informing the applicant’s mother, arranged that the applicant undergo female genital mutilation (FMG) in a private clinic on 22/06/2019. On 28/01/2022 the justice of the peace of court circuit of the Republic of Ingushetia found the doctor who had performed FGM guilty of having caused minor bodily harm and ordered her to pay a fine of RUB 30,000. The defendant was relieved from paying the fine in view of the expiration of the prescription period. The applicant appealed. On 08/04/2022 the Magas District Court of the Ingushetia Republic quashed the conviction and remitted the matter for a fresh consideration. According to the applicant, the proceedings are pending. Authorities’ failure to investigate allegations of domestic violence of their own motion (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 99, 9 July 2019),

Authorities’ failure to take into account the specific features of domestic violence (Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 118, 14 December 2021),

Failure to address the victims’ allegations (hate crimes, death threats, etc.) (Kreyndlin and Others v. Russia, no. 33470/18, §§ 58-59, 31 January 2023; and Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 119, 14 December 2021)
Art. 14 - in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention - failure to put in place specific measures to combat gender-based discrimination against women (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 125-33, 9 July 2019),

Art. 3 - failure to establish and apply effective system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for victims, including by establishing the proper legal framework (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 78-85 and 125‐33, 9 July 2019)
12,500,
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage,

and

850,
in costs and expenses
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.