25590/21

THIRD SECTION CASE OF FEDOROV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 25590/21)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fedorov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,  Mateja Đurović,  Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2026, 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 27 April 2021. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr A. Ryzhov, 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 the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. THE LAW        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).      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention 7.  The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 8.  The Court 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). 9.  In the leading cases of Denis Vasilyev, cited above; Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, 31 July 2012; Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, 9 July 2019; and Romanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 58358/14 and 5 others, §§ 75-80, 12 September 2023, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigation failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness. 11.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.    OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  The applicant submitted a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3, which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see 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 it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Lapunov v. Russia, no. 28834/19, § 119-21, 12 September 2023.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pobokin v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 30726/14, §§ 27-29, 6 April 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant 3,900 euros (EUR). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;      Declares the application admissible;      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill‑treatment committed by private individuals;      Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards another complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);      Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,900 (three thousand and nine hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;   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 30 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh  Acting Deputy Registrar President     APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals) 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 25590/21 27/04/2021 Yevgeniy Vadimovich FEDOROV   Ryzhov Anton Igorevich Moscow The applicant is a bisexual. On 20/04/2017 he was lured by D. to a rented flat under the pretext of a date arranged via a gay dating site. There the applicant was met by eight men who said that D. was a minor and threatened that the applicant would be imprisoned for paedophilia if he did not give them money. The men beat the applicant on the head, asking him to make a video statement about his homosexuality. They also threatened to tell his employer and his family about it. They ultimately let him go and sent him a link on a messaging application through which to make a payment. The applicant did not have physical injuries recorded. On 18/03/2019 he was diagnosed with depression caused by the incident of 20/04/2017. On 04/10/2017 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow police (he did not file a complaint immediately after the incident because he was afraid of revealing his homosexuality). He described the ill-treatment, provided the address of the apartment where it had taken place, detailed physical descriptions of the eight men who had ill-treated him, their full names, mobile phone numbers, social networking accounts and photographs of four of them (which he had found through the link they had sent him), the mobile phone number and email address of D., and the printouts of their correspondence prior to the attack. He also provided links to social networking sites with similar accounts of abuse at the same address. He stressed that the crime against him was motivated by hatred of homosexuals. Between 2017 and 2020 there were ten refusals to open a criminal case, the last one on 03/11/2020. Each decision was overturned by the investigators’ superiors as premature and unlawful, and additional investigative steps were ordered. However, these orders were not implemented. The applicant appealed against several refusals to the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow. On 21/01/2021 the court allowed the complaint having stated that the investigators had failed to comply with the repeated instructions of their superiors. Failure to verify the homophobic motive (Romanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 58358/14 and 5 others, §§ 78-79, 12 September 2023), Failure to collect evidence and other shortcomings (Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 127, 17 December 2009; and Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, § 72, 31 July 2012) Art. 14 - Prohibition of discrimination - The applicant was subjected to targeted violence on account of his sexual orientation, and no reasonable steps were taken to examine the role which homophobic motives might have played in his ill-treatment.