Originally from The Journal of Eurasian Law (JEL)

CASE OF
FINOGENOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03)

First Section
JUDGMENT

Strasbourg
20 December 2011

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Finogenov and Others v. Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 November 2011,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03) 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"). The first application was lodged by Mr Pavel Alekseyevich Finogenov and six other people, the second application was lodged by Ms Zoya Pavlovna Chernetsova and fifty-six other people ("the applicants") on 26 April 2003 and 18 August 2003 respectively. The names of the applicants are listed in the annex (with minor modifications concerning Mr O. Matyukhin--see paragraph 204 below) [editor’s note: the list of applicants has not been included here.]

2. The applicants in the first application were represented before the Court by Ms K. Moskalenko and Ms O. Mikhaylova, lawyers practising in Moscow. The applicants in the second application were represented before the Court by Mr Trunov and Ms Ayvar, lawyers practising in Moscow. The respondent Government was represented in both cases by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3. The applicants in both cases alleged, in particular, that during the hostage crisis in Moscow on 23-26 October 2002 the authorities had applied excessive force, which had resulted in the death of their relatives who were being held hostage by the terrorists in the Dubrovka theatre. Some of the applicants were themselves among the hostages and suffered serious damage to their health and psychological trauma as a result of the authorities’ actions. The applicants further claimed that the authorities had failed to plan and conduct the rescue operation in such a way as to minimise the risks for the hostages. They claimed that the criminal investigation into the authorities’ actions had been ineffective, and that the applicants had had no effective remedies to complain about that fact. Finally, the applicants in the case of Chernetsova and Others complained of the difficulties they encountered in the civil proceedings concerning compensation for damage suffered by them.

4. By a decision of 18 March 2010, the Court declared the applications partly admissible. On the same date the Chamber decided to join the proceedings in the applications (Rule 42 § 1).

5. The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the merits and replied in writing to each other’s observations.