RAUSH v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
1. The applicant, Mr Petr Aleksandrovich Raush, is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in St Petersburg. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Gruzd, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant was a member of the local anarchist movement. 5. On 1 May 2002 the applicant participated in a public gathering. At around 12 noon the applicant and six other persons were apprehended by the police and put in a police vehicle. According to the applicant, the arrest was carried out in a brutal manner: police officers twisted his fingers, gave him several blows on his back and legs and put him face down against the floor of the police vehicle. According to the police reports of 1 May 2002, the applicant was inebriated and violently resisted the police. 6. The applicant was released at around 4 p.m., that is, four hours after his arrest. He was not subject to any prosecution under the Code of Administrative Offences. 7. At around 7 p.m. on the same date the applicant underwent a medical examination, which concluded that he had bruises and scratches on his face and chest. At 8 p.m. he obtained a medical certificate confirming that he was not drunk. 8. On 16 May 2002 the applicant and other persons complained to the Tsentralnyy district prosecutor’s office, St Petersburg (“the district prosecutor’s office”) about police brutality on 1 May 2002. 9. On 28 June 2002 the district prosecutor’s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of evidence of a crime, having concluded that it was impossible to establish whether the officers had inflicted any injuries on the applicant or other persons. 10. On 28 October 2002 the district deputy prosecutor overturned the decision of 28 June 2002. 11. On 30 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office again refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the grounds that the persons participating in the public gathering of 1 May 2002 had refused to comply with the police order to stop the gathering and had resisted lawful arrest; accordingly, the police had acted lawfully in order to overcome violent resistance. 12. According to the applicant, he was served with a copy of the decision of 30 January 2003 on 29 April 2003. It remains unclear whether the applicant had attempted to obtain a copy prior to that date. 13. On 24 June 2003 the applicant challenged the decision of 30 January 2003 before the Smolninskiy District Court, St Petersburg (“the District Court”). 14. On 3 December 2003 the District Court declared the decision unlawful on the grounds that the seriousness of the injuries allegedly sustained by the applicant had not been assessed and issued an instruction ordering the prosecutor to re-examine the matter. 15. On 19 December 2003 the district prosecutor’s office again refused to open an investigation. 16. According to the applicant, he managed to obtain a copy of the decision of 19 December 2003 on 9 July 2004. It remains unclear whether the applicant had attempted to obtain a copy prior to that date. 17. On 31 August 2004 the applicant challenged the decision of 19 December 2003 before the District Court. 18. On 22 September 2004 the District Court declared the refusal of 19 December 2003 unlawful on the grounds that the seriousness of the injuries allegedly sustained by the applicant had not been assessed. 19. On 13 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office issued a new refusal to open an investigation on the grounds that it was possible that the injuries had been sustained after the applicant’s release from the police station. 20. According to the applicant, he received a copy of the decision of 13 October 2004 in February 2005. It is not known whether the applicant had sought a copy earlier. 21. On 12 September 2005 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the decision of 13 October 2004 before the District Court. 22. On 26 September 2005 the District Court declared the decision of 13 October 2004 unlawful noting the incompleteness of the preinvestigation inquiry. 23. On 24 November 2006 the district prosecutor’s office issued a new decision refusing to open an investigation. 24. According to the Government, on 25 January 2010 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office overturned unspecified refusals to open an investigation by the district prosecutor’s office. 25. On 15 April 2003 the applicant and other persons held a picket in front of the US Embassy in Moscow. They were arrested as they had failed to duly notify the city authorities of the picket. According to the applicant, he was arrested at 5.15 p.m. When brought to the police vehicle, he received two blows to his head. He was then required to sit on the floor of the vehicle. Once in the police station, a police officer inflicted around thirty blows to the applicant’s head and chest. According to the police reports of 15 April 2003, the applicant had violently resisted arrest. 26. The applicant was released shortly after his arrival at the police station. In the applicant’s submission, it happened two hours after the arrest. According to the Government, the applicant was arrested at 5.30 p.m. and released at 6.20 p.m. 27. At around 7.30 p.m. on the same date the applicant underwent a medical examination in a hospital and was diagnosed with bruises and scratches on the body and limbs and a bruise on the chest. 28. On 21 April 2003 the applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office of police brutality. 29. On 20 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office refused to open an investigation on the grounds that the participants of the picket had violently resisted the police. 30. On 28 May 2003 a Justice of the Peace of St Petersburg Circuit no. 201 imposed on the applicant a fine of 1,000 Russian roubles under the Code of Administrative Offences for his participation in the unauthorised picket. 31. On 24 June 2003 the applicant challenged the refusal of 20 May 2003 before the District Court. 32. On 3 December 2003 the District Court declared the decision of 20 May 2003 unlawful. 33. On 19 December 2003 the district prosecutor’s office again refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers. 34. The applicant allegedly received a copy of the decision of 19 December 2003 on 17 June 2004. 35. On 31 August 2004 the applicant challenged the refusal of 19 December 2003 before the District Court. 36. On 22 September 2004 the District Court declared the decision of 19 December 2003 unlawful. 37. On 4 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office again refused to open an investigation. 38. In his submission, the applicant received a copy of the decision of 4 October 2004 on 19 June 2005. 39. On 12 September 2005 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the refusal of 4 October 2004 before the District Court. 40. On 26 September 2005 the District Court declared the decision of 4 October 2004 unlawful. 41. According to the Government, on 25 January 2010 the prosecutor’s office of St Petersburg quashed unspecified refusals to open an investigation by the district prosecutor’s office.