5841/23;7877/23;11065/23

THIRD SECTION CASE OF BORZENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 5841/23 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 March 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Borzenkov and Others 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 5 March 2026, 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. THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.      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 applications (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 applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation into the events in question (see appended table). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention. 8.  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of a democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). In respect of a person who is confronted with law‑enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015). Specifically, when authorities resort to the use of force for the purpose of quelling mass unrest, such force may be used only if it is indispensable, and it must not be excessive (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, § 62-64, 13 October 2020). The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force by State agents, 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 State agents 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 cases where the authorities have refused to either carry-out an official inquiry into the applicants’ allegations or officially register the applicants’ complaints (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. The Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and decides that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.   OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.   The applicants in applications nos. 5841/23 and 11065/23 submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see 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, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Zakharov and Varzhabetyan cited above, § 91, 13 October 2020.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  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 and Zakharov and Varzhabetyan, cited above, § 97), 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,      Decides to join the applications;      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;      Declares the applications admissible;      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ill-treatment of the applicants by State authorities and the lack of an effective investigation into the events in question;      Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);      Holds  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;   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;      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh  Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Factual information Medical evidence of ill-treatment Date of first complaint Decision issued in response to complaint of ill-treatment Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP Appeal decision Information relating to conviction Other complaints under well‑established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     5841/23 10/01/2023 Daniil Konstantinovich BORZENKOV   Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan At 9.15 p.m. on 24/02/2022 the Russian Guards officers apprehended the applicant on the way to a Moscow manifestation against the war in Ukraine. The officers hit him with the rubber truncheons on the ribs, head and legs. Thereafter he was taken to the Mezchanskiy police station in Moscow, where a record of an administrative offence was drawn up. Medical certificate of 25/02/2022 by the Moscow City Polyclinic No. 62: contusion of the soft tissues of the left thigh. On 04/03/2022 complaint with the Tverskoy District Investigative Department in Moscow/on 28/03/2022 the complaint transferred to the Internal security department of the Moscow Police. No other information given to the applicant. On 28/07/2022 the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the authority’s inaction on the grounds of the lack of the subject-matter of the case/On 04/10/2022 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal. The applicant was sentenced to an administrative fine under Article 20.2 (5) of the CAO (final – Moscow City Court 09/09/2022). Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - Manifestation against the war in Ukraine on 24/02/2022. Article 20.2 (5) of the CAO. Administrative fine. Moscow City Court, 09/09/2022. 6,500     7877/23 02/02/2023 Natalya Borisovna KRISKO   Valiyeva Elza Albertovna Nizhniy Novgorod At approximately 7 p.m. on 01/06/2020 in the Krasnodar region, the applicant was ill-treated by intoxicated police officers who grabbed her by the wrists and pushed her down, causing her to hit the back of her head on the steps of a bank. She was held against the railing of the stairs for some 20-30 minutes in front of a number of passers-by. Ambulance call card no. 160 of 01/06/2020 by the Kurganinskiy district ambulance station. Extract from the applicant’s medical record of 02/06/2020 by the Kurganinskiy central district hospital: bruises in the chest and upper limbs, bruising. Photos of the applicant’s injuries.   On 03/06/2020 complaint to the Labinskiy Inter-district Investigative Committee in the Krasnodar Region / Between 03/07/2020 and 23/10/2021 nine refusals to open a criminal case. On 09/08/2022 the Kurganinskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the last refusal of 23/10/2021/Upheld by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 20/10/2022. The applicant was not charged with any offence.   6,500     11065/23 21/02/2023 Kseniya Vladimirovna VIKTOROVA   Gerasimov Dmitriy Georgiyevich St Petersburg On 21/04/2021, on the way to a rally protesting the arrest of an opposition politician Mr A. Navalnyy, the applicant was forcibly apprehended by the police. Officers used a rubber truncheon and a stun gun against her. She was then taken to a police station for the preparation of an offence report. The following day she visited a doctor who documented her injuries. Medical certificate of 22/04/2021: contusions to the left forearm, right and left hips and left knee joint. First complaint to the 16th police department in St Petersburg on 15/05/2021 / Refusals to open a criminal case: 27/07/2021 and 28/07/2022. On 05/10/2022 the applicant appealed against the investigator’s refusal to open a criminal case of 28/07/2022. By decision of 02/11/2022, as upheld on appeal on 18/01/2023, the Oktyabrskiy District Court in St Petersburg dismissed her appeal.   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - On 21/04/2021 the applicant’s arrest brought about an end to her participation in an assembly which constituted an interference with her right to freedom of assembly. 16,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.