THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KOSTYLENKOV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 54308/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 July 2025

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

In the case of Kostylenkov v. Russia,

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

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 November 2018.

2.  The applicant was represented by Ms S. Sidorkina, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant complained of ill-treatment at the hands of State officials and absence of proper investigation into the events in question. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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 application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention

7.  The applicant complained principally of the inhuman treatment inflicted by State officials. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention and also argued that there was no proper investigation into his ill-treatment complaints.

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 case where the authorities refused to carry out an official inquiry into the applicant’s 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 (for details see the appended table).

11.  Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that these complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention.

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

12.  The applicant also complained under Article 5 of the Convention, raising an issue under the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that this complaint also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters.

4. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13.  Finally, the applicant submitted additional complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it has already determined the main legal issues in the case (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above) and that accordingly there is no need to examine these complaints separately (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2. Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about ill‑treatment of the applicant by State authorities and lack of an effective investigation into the events, and a complaint raised under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention under the well-established case-law of the Court, admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised under Article 13 of the Convention;
3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant and lack of an effective investigation into these complaints;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inhuman or degrading treatment)

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