This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. MIKHALCHUK v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Mikhalchuk v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Elisabeth Steiner, President, Khanlar Hajiyev, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Erik Møse, Ksenija Turković, Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 March 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 33803/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Aleksey Vasilyevich Mikhalchuk (“the applicant”), on 13 July...
FIRST SECTION CASE OF MIKHALCHUK v. RUSSIA (Application no. 33803/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 April 2015 FINAL 23/07/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
MIKHALCHUK v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Mikhalchuk v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Elisabeth Steiner, President, Khanlar Hajiyev, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Erik Møse, Ksenija Turković, Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 March 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 33803/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Aleksey Vasilyevich Mikhalchuk (“the applicant”), on 13 July 2004. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Righs. 3. The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by police officers, that the authorities had not effectively investigated his complaints about the ill-treatment and that his pre-trial detention had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. 4. On 19 October 2009 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Moscow. 6. On 17 April 2003 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of robbery and extortion and took him to the Yuzhnoye Tushino police station in Moscow. The applicant alleged that once at the police station, he had
2 MIKHALCHUK v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT been beaten by police officers to make him confess to criminal offences and that he had then written a self-incriminating statement. 7. On 18 April 2003 the Tushinskiy Interdistrict Prosecutor’s Office (“the prosecutor’s office”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion. On the same date the applicant was released. 8. On 24 April 2003 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office ordered that the applicant be taken to the police station for questioning. The order stated that despite numerous summonses, the applicant had failed to appear at the police station for questioning. 9. On 25 April 2003 the investigator questioned the applicant in the presence of legal counsel. During the interview the applicant submitted that he had confessed to criminal offences on 17 April 2003 after having been beaten by police officers. 10. On the same date the investigator charged the applicant with several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion, and made him sign a written under...