FILIPPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
1. The applicants, Ms Antonina Ivanovna Filippova, Ms Albina Georgievna Ivannikova, Ms Irina Vasilyevna Medvedeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1943, 1930, and 1966 respectively, and live in Podolsk (Moscow Region), Moscow, and Yubileyny (Moscow Region) respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr I. Trunov and Ms L. Ayvar, lawyers practising in Moscow. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On the evening of 23 October 2002 a group of terrorists belonging to the Chechen separatist movement took hostages in the “Dubrovka” theatre in Moscow (also known as the “Nord-Ost” theatre). For three days more than nine hundred people were held at gunpoint and under threat of explosions in the theatre’s auditorium. The terrorists refused to surrender, so in the early morning of 26 October 2002 the Russian security forces pumped an unknown gas through the building’s ventilation system. When the terrorists lost consciousness under the influence of the gas, special forces stormed the building. As a result of the operation the majority of the hostages were released (over 730 people). However, a large number of hostages were affected by the gas; according to information gathered by the investigative authorities by the end of 2002, 129 hostages died on the spot, in the hospitals or during transportation, and some of those who survived continued to suffer from serious health problems. Other facts concerning the hostage-taking, the liberation of the hostages, the medical assistance provided, and the ensuing investigation and civil proceedings are presented in the case Finogenov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03, ECHR 2011 (extracts), concerning the same events. 5. A criminal investigation into the events was opened in October 2002. As regards the storming of the building and the rescue operation, the investigation into the terrorist act did not establish any fault on the part of the authorities and no separate inquiry into the officials’ actions has been conducted. The Finogenov and Others judgment covered those proceedings up to November 2003 (Finogenov and Others, cited above, §§ 30-102). All former hostages and next of kin of the deceased had been questioned and had been granted the status of victims by that time (ibid., § 40). Several applicants in the Finogenov and Others case challenged the investigation’s inaction and lack of results in the courts. Their complaints were dismissed by the courts in Moscow in 2005-2006 (ibid., §§ 123-42). The main criminal investigation was extended several times, and remained pending at the time of the Finogenov and Others judgment. 6. One episode of the case, concerning an accomplice of the terrorists, Mr T., was severed from the main case and brought to trial. Mr T. was convicted in September 2003. 7. In its judgment of 20 December 2011 the Court found that there had been a breach of the positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention in so far as the planning and execution of the rescue operation was concerned; it also found a breach of the authorities’ obligation to effectively investigate the loss of life, since the “the investigation into the authorities’ alleged negligence in this case was neither thorough nor independent” (ibid., § 282). The Court found no violation of Article 2 in respect of the authorities’ decisions to storm the building and to employ potentially lethal gas to neutralise the terrorists (ibid., §§ 226 and 236). It also found that no separate issues arose under Articles 6 and 13. In making awards under Article 41, the Court took into account that the violations found concerned the failure to comply with positive obligations, resulting from the unintended consequences of the rescue operations, and noted the domestic payments made to the applicants. 8. At its 1265th meeting, on 20-21 September 2016, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopted a decision concerning the execution proceedings in the Finogenov and Others case (CM/Del/Dec(2016)1265/H46-23/22 September 2016). Referring to the communications from the Russian authorities, the Committee of Ministers welcomed information about the payment of individual awards. At the same time, it regretted “the investigating authorities’ decision, taken after the European Court’s judgment, not to open a criminal investigation due to the previous domestic decision taken in this context”. It also invited the Russian authorities to inform the Committee in detail about the investigation’s further perspectives. 9. The applicants in the present case lost their relatives during the hostage crisis, or were themselves amongst the hostages. The first and the second applicants lost their daughters, Ms Zh. Goncharova and Ms Ye. Anisimova, respectively. The third applicant was amongst the hostages herself and, in addition, lost her husband, Mr V. Medvedev. 10. The applicants submitted no information or documents concerning participation in the criminal investigation. The Government submitted copies of the decisions to grant victim status to the first and third applicants, dated 15 December and 27 October 2002 respectively. 11. In 2002 the applicants brought proceedings against the Moscow City Administration, seeking compensation for the damage caused by the terrorist attack. They claimed that Article 17 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act established the strict liability of the regional authorities (liability without fault) for any non-pecuniary damage caused to the victims of a terrorist attack. The claims made no mention of the pending criminal investigation into the attack, although the copies of the decisions to grant victim status had been appended (but not submitted to the Court). On 28 May 2003 the Tverskoy District Court dismissed those claims as unfounded. The District Court found that the Moscow City Administration bore a number of obligations towards the victims, especially in respect of their rehabilitation and support, but was not responsible for the carrying out and coordination of anti-terrorist operations. The applicants decided not to appeal against the judgment, because they believed that it would be futile. 12. In March 2012 the Government submitted, in addition, information about proceedings for obtaining regular payments following the loss of a breadwinner. According to these documents, in 2003 several relatives of the deceased victims of the terrorist attack, including three applicants in the present case, sought additional payments for the loss of a breadwinner. On 20 January 2004 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow partially granted the claims and awarded to each of the applicants additional regular payments, pursuant to the Moscow City Administration’s decree of 29 January 2003, no. 116-rp, on assistance to the victims of terrorist acts and the general obligation established by section 17 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998. The latter provided that the damage caused by a terrorist attack should be compensated by the authorities of the federal constituency where the attack took place. It does not appear that an appeal was lodged against the judgment of 20 January 2004. These proceedings did not mention the then pending criminal investigation. 13. The parties’ submissions contain no information to indicate that the applicants took any steps in the context of the criminal investigation into the terrorist attack or any other proceedings other than those described above.