CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 15 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5D0944B3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBFF7ACF9 { width:1.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s4F2E3CA4 { width:222.82pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCA8776E8 { width:214.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s41B57335 { width:196.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s33898F05 { width:211.32pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF74FB0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.5pt } .sF6182E01 { font-family:Arial; font-size:4.33pt; vertical-align:super } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7876111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s681BE8C7 { width:183.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5C148630 { width:171.61pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCD61FA93 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 } .sC266F526 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#222222 } .sFA0E4E80 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC83985A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#222222 } .sB10A4471 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#222222 } .s1F56D76C { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#222222 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9EC587BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s2659C9FD { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; color:#222222 } .s100F4741 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-style:italic; color:#222222 } .sD6DE1560 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-style:italic }       GRAND CHAMBER           CASE OF NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 29580/12 and 4 others - see appended list)                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   15 November 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Navalnyy v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President ,   Angelika Nußberger,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Robert Spano,   Ledi Bianku,   André Potocki,   Aleš Pejchal,   Faris Vehabović,   Dmitry Dedov,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Georges Ravarani,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Tim Eicke,   Jolien Schukking,   Péter Paczolay,   Lado Chanturia, judges , and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 24 January and 19 September 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in five applications (nos.   29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13 and 43746/14) 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 Anatolyevich Navalnyy (“the applicant”), on 14 May 2012, 28 May 2012, 30 November 2012, 14 January 2013 and 6 June 2014 respectively. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms O. Mikhaylova, Mr   K.   Terekhov, Ms A. Maralyan and Ms K. Moskalenko, lawyers practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G.   Matyushkin, the 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 applicant complained that his arrest at public events on seven occasions had violated his right to freedom of peaceful assembly and right to liberty. He also alleged that his arrest, detention and the administrative charges brought against him had pursued the aim of undermining his right to freedom of assembly, for political reasons. Finally, he alleged that the administrative proceedings before the domestic courts had fallen short of the guarantees of a fair hearing. 4.     On 28 August 2014 the applications were communicated to the Government. The parties each submitted written comments on the other’s observations. 5.     The applications were allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1). A Chamber of that Section composed of Luis López Guerra, President, Helena Jäderblom, Helen Keller, Dmitry Dedov, Branko   Lubarda, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Alena Poláčková, judges, and Fatoş   Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, delivered a judgment on 2 February 2017. The Court unanimously joined the applications and unanimously declared the application admissible. It held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 11 of the Convention on account of all seven episodes complained of; of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s arrest on seven occasions and his pre-trial detention on two occasions; and of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention as regards six sets of administrative proceedings. It held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the administrative proceedings concerning the events of 5 March 2012. It concluded, unanimously, that there was no need to examine the remainder of the complaints under Article   6 of the Convention, the complaint under Article   14 of the Convention or the complaint under Article 18 in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention. It concluded, by four votes to three, that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   18 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention. The joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges López Guerra, Keller and Pastor Vilanova, as well as the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Keller, were annexed to the judgment. 6.     On 26 April 2017 the Government, and on 2 May 2017 the applicant, requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court. The panel of the Grand Chamber granted the requests on 29 May 2017. 7.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. 8.     The applicant and the Government each filed written observations. 9.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 24 January 2018. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government   Mr M. Galperin ,   Agent   Ms Y. Borisova ,   Mr P. Smirnov ,   Ms M. Zinoveva ,   Mr N. Chestnykh ,   Mr R. Lesnikov ,   Mr V. Oleynik ,   Mr D. Gazizov ,   Advisors ; (b)     for the applicant Ms A. Maralyan , Ms O. Mikhaylova ,   Counsels Mr A. Navalnyy ,   Applicant.   The Court heard addresses by Ms Maralyan, Ms Mikhaylova, Mr   Navalnyy and Mr Galperin, and their answers to questions put by the Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10.     The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Moscow. 11.     The applicant is a political activist, opposition leader, anti ‑ corruption campaigner and popular blogger. These five applications concern his arrests on seven occasions at different public events. 12.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     The applicant’s arrest on 5 March 2012 13.     On 5 March 2012 the applicant took part in a meeting at Pushkinskaya Square, Moscow, which began at 7 p.m. It had been called to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections in Russia and had been approved by the municipal authorities. 14.     At the end of the meeting, at 9 p.m., State Duma deputy Mr P. addressed the participants, inviting the public to stay after the meeting for informal consultations, which began at about 9.30 p.m. and were attended by some 500 people. According to the applicant, he stayed among others at Pushkinskaya Square for a meeting with the deputy; they remained peacefully within the pedestrian area of the square and did not obstruct the traffic or access. According to the Government, the applicant was holding an irregular gathering without prior notification and was shouting political slogans. 15.     At 10.45 p.m. the police arrived and arrested the applicant, among many others. He was taken to the Tverskoy District police station. 16.     On the same evening two policemen drew up a report on the administrative offence, stating that the applicant had been arrested at 10.45   p.m. “in a fountain” at Pushkinskaya Square; that he had taken part in an irregular public gathering and that he had ignored police orders to disperse. The applicant was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events, an offence under Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant was released at 12.15   a.m. on 6   March 2012. 17.     On 15 March 2012 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 369 of the Tverskoy District examined the administrative charges against the applicant. The applicant challenged the authenticity of the police reports and the witness statement of the two police officers on the grounds that he had been arrested by different police officers, but his objection was dismissed. On the basis of the written statements and testimony of two police officers the Justice of the Peace found the applicant guilty of taking part in an irregular public gathering conducted without prior notification and fined the applicant 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB), equivalent at the material time to about 25   euros (EUR), under Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. 18.     On 10 April 2012 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow examined the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was absent, but he was represented by a lawyer. The court questioned one further eyewitness, a journalist, who testified that before being arrested the applicant was standing “in a fountain, holding hands with others” and chanting political slogans. He also testified that the police officers who had placed the applicant in the police bus were the same officers who had signed the report and who had appeared at the first-instance hearing. The court examined two video recordings submitted by the applicant. It found that the State Duma deputy had indeed called a public meeting, but concluded that at the time of his arrest the applicant was not meeting the deputy but was participating in a protest assembly. It upheld the judgment of 15 March 2012. B.     The applicant’s two arrests on 8 May 2012 19.     On 8 May 2012 the applicant took part in an overnight “walkabout”, an informal gathering whereby activists peacefully met at a public venue to discuss current affairs. On this occasion, several dozen activists met up to discuss the inauguration of Mr Putin as President of Russia on the previous day. On 8   May 2012 some areas of central Moscow were restricted for traffic, and partly also to pedestrians, due to the presidential inauguration and the Victory Day celebrations. 20.     At 4.30 a.m., according to the applicant, or at 4 a.m., according to the Government, the applicant was walking down Lubyanskiy Proyezd, accompanied by about 170 people. The group stopped on the stairs of a public building for a group photograph. While the applicant was taking the photograph he was arrested by riot police. At 8 a.m. he was taken to a police station where an administrative offence report was drawn up. The applicant was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events, an offence under Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant was released at 10.50 a.m. on that day. 21.     On the same day, at 11.55 p.m., according to the Government, or at 11 p.m., according to the applicant, the applicant was walking down Bolshaya Nikitskaya Street in a cluster of about fifty people. According to the applicant, they stayed on the pavement, had no banners or sound equipment, and were causing no nuisance. They were surrounded by riot police and the applicant was arrested without any order or warning. 22.     At 11.58 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to a police station where an administrative offence report was drawn up. He was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events, an offence under Articles 20 § 2 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant was released at 2.50 a.m. on 9 May 2012. 23.     On 30 May 2012 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 387 of the Basmannyy District examined the charges concerning the applicant’s administrative offence at Lubyanskiy Proyezd. The applicant was absent from the proceedings, but he was represented by his lawyer, who disputed the applicant’s participation in an irregular assembly and claimed that his client had not chanted any slogans. He asked the Justice of the Peace to admit video evidence and to examine certain eyewitnesses, but she refused to do so. On the basis of written statements by two police officers the Justice of the Peace found the applicant guilty of taking part in a meeting conducted before 7 a.m., in breach of regulations, and fined him RUB 1,000 under Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. This judgment was delivered in full on 1 June 2012. It was upheld on 6 July 2012 by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow. 24.     On 1 June 2012 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 380 of the Presnenskiy District of Moscow examined the administrative charges concerning the applicant’s administrative offence at Bolshaya Nikitskaya Street. The applicant was absent from the proceedings, but he was represented by his lawyer, who disputed the applicant’s participation in an irregular assembly and claimed that his client had not chanted any slogans. The Justice of the Peace questioned three eyewitnesses and the police officer who had arrested the applicant. The police officer testified that he had arrested the applicant because he was walking in a big group of people, obstructing traffic and chanting political slogans. The eyewitnesses testified that the applicant had been walking down the street with about fifty or sixty people, and that the police had blocked their way and had begun to arrest them without any warning; they denied hearing any slogans or amplified sound. The Justice of the Peace refused to admit video evidence and dismissed the eyewitness statements on the grounds that the eyewitnesses were likely to be the applicant’s supporters and were therefore biased. The applicant was found guilty of taking part in a meeting conducted in breach of regulations and was fined RUB   1,000 under Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. This judgment was upheld on 25 June 2012 by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow. C.     The applicant’s arrest on 9 May 2012 25.     On 9 May 2012 the applicant arrived at 5 a.m. at Kudrinskaya Square in Moscow to take part in an informal meeting with a State Duma deputy and to attend the Victory Day celebrations. He was among 50 to 100   people peacefully “walking about” and discussing current affairs. According to the applicant, this gathering was not a demonstration: there had been no banners and no noise, and no one was chanting slogans or giving speeches. 26.     At 6 a.m. riot police arrived at the site of the meeting and arrested the applicant without issuing any orders or warning. The applicant submitted a video recording of his arrest. 27.     At 8.50 a.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the Strogino District police station. At 11.50 a.m. the applicant was searched and an administrative offence report was then drawn up. According to the applicant, he was detained at the police station for more than three hours before being brought before a Justice of the Peace. The Government confirmed that the applicant had been detained pending trial, but did not specify the duration. 28.     At an unidentified time on the same day the applicant was brought before the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 375 of the Presnenskiy District of Moscow. The Justice of the Peace refused the applicant’s requests that the police officers who had arrested him be called and examined, and that video evidence be admitted, but granted his request for examination of three eyewitnesses. The witnesses testified that there had been a public meeting with a State Duma deputy to discuss current political developments; that no one had chanted slogans or made noise or obstructed traffic; and that the police had not issued any orders or warnings before arresting the applicant. On the basis of the written statements of two police officers the court established that the applicant had taken part in an irregular public meeting and had disobeyed a lawful order from the police to disperse. It also found that the applicant had chanted the slogans “Russia without Putin!” and “Putin is a thief!” and had refused to leave the square, which needed to be cleared for the Victory Day celebrations. The Justice of the Peace rejected the statements of the three eyewitnesses, on the grounds that they had given different estimates of the number of people present at the venue, the number of police officers who arrested the applicant, and the time of his arrival at the meeting. The applicant was found guilty of disobeying the lawful order of the police, in breach of Article 19 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and was sentenced to fifteen days’ administrative imprisonment. 29.     On 10 May 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal. 30.     On 12 December 2012 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow examined the appeal. The applicant asked for the police officers on whose reports and statements the Justice of the Peace had based the judgment to be cross-examined, as well as eight eyewitnesses, and for the video recording of the arrest to be admitted as evidence. The court dismissed these requests and upheld the judgment of 9 May 2012. D.     The applicant’s arrest on 27 October 2012 31.     On 27 October 2012 the applicant held a static demonstration (“picket”, пикетирование ) at Lubyanskaya Square, which was a part of series of peaceful pickets held in Moscow in front of the buildings housing the Federal Security Service and the Russian Investigation Committee to protest “against repressions and torture”. According to the applicant, his demonstration was a solo picket ( одиночное пикетирование ) which was not subject to a prior notification to the competent public authority. In total, about thirty people consecutively took part in this event. 32.     At 3.30 p.m. the police arrested the applicant at 9 Maroseyka Street when he was walking down the street accompanied by a group of people. According to the applicant, at the moment of arrest he had finished picketing and was peacefully walking along the pavement; he was not chanting or carrying any banners, but he was being followed by a group of people, including journalists, whose number he estimated as “two dozen”. According to the Government, the applicant had organised an irregular march without prior notification. The applicant was taken to the police station at 4.10   p.m. He was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events, an offence under Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. He was released at 7.17 p.m. the same day. 33.     On 30 October 2012 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 387 of the Basmannyy District examined the charges. She examined three eyewitnesses called at the applicant’s request, but refused his request that the police officers who had arrested him be called and examined. The applicant’s request that a video recording of the relevant events be admitted as evidence was also refused, as was the request that a written report from an NGO which had observed the pickets be admitted in evidence. The three eyewitnesses examined at the applicant’s request testified that the applicant, after ending his picket, had walked down the street while speaking with a fellow activist, surrounded by journalists; he remained on the pavement, did not chant slogans, and carried no banners; several other participants in the picket remained standing with their banners, at a certain distance from each other; the police arrested the applicant without any warning or explanation. On the basis of written reports by two police officers the Justice of the Peace established that the applicant had organised and led a group of thirty people, thus holding a march without the approval of the local authorities; that they were heading from Lubyanskaya Square to Lefortovo detention facility, and that at 9 Maroseyka Street the group had obstructed the road, thus halting traffic. She dismissed the witness statements in the applicant’s favour on the grounds that they contradicted the evidence in the case file and found the applicant guilty of taking part in a march which had not been duly notified to the authorities. She fined him RUB 30,000 (equivalent at the material time to about EUR 740) under Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. 34.     On 7 December 2012 the Basmannyy District Court upheld the judgment of 30 October 2012. E.     The applicant’s two arrests on 24 February 2014 35.     On 24 February 2014 at 12 noon the applicant went to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow to attend a hearing involving activists who were on trial for participation in mass disorders at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012. The judgment was to be delivered at a public hearing on that date. The court-house was cordoned off and obstructed by police vans, and the applicant was unable to enter. He therefore remained outside among other members of the public wishing to attend the hearing. According to the applicant he was standing there silently when the police suddenly rushed into the crowd and arrested him, without any order, warning or pretext. According to the official version, he was holding an irregular gathering and chanting political slogans. 36.     At 12.50 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to a police station. He was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events, an offence under Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant was released at 3   p.m. the same day. 37.     Later that day, at about 7.45 p.m., the applicant took part in a peaceful public gathering following the delivery of the judgment in respect of mass disorders at Bolotnaya Square, as a result of which several activists had been sentenced to prison terms. The gathering of about 150 participants took place at Tverskaya Street. The applicant was arrested while he was standing on the pavement talking to a journalist. According to the applicant he had received no order or warning, and he did not resist the police. According to the police report, when the applicant was being seated in the police vehicle he was waving at the crowd and trying to attract media attention, thus demonstrating a refusal to comply with the police order and resisting the officers in the performance of their duties. 38.     At 8.20 p.m. the applicant was taken to the Tverskoy District police station, where an administrative offence report was drawn up. The applicant was charged with disobeying a lawful order of the police, an offence under Article 19 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. He was detained on remand. 39.     On the following day, 25 February 2014, at an unidentified time, the applicant was brought before the judge of the Tverskoy District Court, who examined the charges under Article 19 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant’s request for two eyewitnesses to be examined was granted. They testified that the police had not given the applicant any orders or warnings before proceeding to arrest him. The court admitted and examined the video recording of the contested events and questioned the two police officers on whose reports the charges were based. The court established that the applicant had taken part in an irregular meeting and had disobeyed the lawful order of the police to disperse. The applicant was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order of the police, in breach of Article   19 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and was sentenced to seven days’ administrative imprisonment. 40.     On 7 March 2014 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court examined the charges relating to the applicant’s alleged participation on 24 February 2014 in an unauthorised public gathering in front of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court. The applicant requested that two eyewitnesses present at the court ‑ house and the two policemen on whose reports the charges were based be examined. These requests were dismissed. The court admitted a video recording of the contested events, but decided not to take cognisance of its contents because it was undated and because it had not reproduced the full sequence of events. On the basis of the written reports by the two police officers, the judge found the applicant guilty of taking part in a meeting which had not been notified to the competent authority in accordance with the procedure provided by law, and fined him RUB   10,000 (equivalent to about EUR   200) under Article 20 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. 41.     On 24 March 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 25   February 2014. 42.     On 22 May 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 7   March 2014. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 43.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Kasparov and   Others v. Russia (no. 21613/07, § 35, 3 October 2013); Navalnyy and   Yashin v. Russia (no. 76204/11, §§ 43-44, 4 December 2014); Novikova and Others v. Russia (nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 67-69, 26 April 2016); and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§   216-312, 7 February 2017). The provisions directly relevant to the present case are set out below. 44.     Article 55 § 3 of the Russian Constitution provides as follows: “The rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens may be limited by federal law only to the extent required for the protection of the fundamental principles of the constitutional system, morality, health, the rights and lawful interests of other people, and for ensuring the defence of the country and the security of the State.” 45.     The Federal Law on Gatherings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Pickets, no. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 (“the Public Events Act”), provided, at the material time, as follows: Section 2 Basic definitions “... 1.     a public event is an open, peaceful action accessible to all, held in the form of a gathering ( собрание ), a meeting ( митинг ), a demonstration ( демонстрация ), a march ( шествие ), or a “picket” ( пикетирование ) or in various combination of these forms, organised at the initiative of citizens of the Russian Federation, political parties, other public associations, or religious associations, including [events] held with the use of vehicles. The aim of a public event is the free expression and formation of opinions, and to put forward demands on issues of political, economic, social and cultural life in the country, as well as issues of foreign policy. ...” Section 3 Principles of holding a public event “A public event is based on the following principles: 1.     legality - compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, this Federal Law [and] other legislative acts of the Russian Federation; ...” Section 5 Organiser of a public event “... 4.     The organiser of a public event must: (1)     notify the executive [or municipal] authority ... of the public event in accordance with section 7 of this Federal Law.” Section 7 Notification of a public event “Notification of a public event (except for a gathering and a picket held by a solo participant) must be filed in writing by its organiser with the executive [or municipal] authority ... no earlier than fifteen days and no later than ten days before the date of the public event ...” Section 16 Grounds for ending a public event “The grounds for ending a public event shall be: 1.     the emergence of a genuine threat to citizens’ lives or health, and to the possessions of physical or legal persons; 2.     commission by the participants of unlawful acts or a deliberate breach by the organiser of the requirements on the procedure for the conduct of public events established by this Federal Law; 3.     [ following the legislative amendments of 8 June 2012 ] non-compliance by the organisers with the obligations set out in section 5 paragraph 4 of this Federal Law.” Section 17 Procedure for ending a public event “1.     If it is decided to end the public event the representative of the executive [or municipal] authority ...: (1)     shall give an order to the organiser of the public event to end the public event, having explained the reasons for its termination, and within twenty ‑ four hours, shall issue this order in writing and serve it on the organiser of the public event; (2)     shall set the time for compliance with the order to end the public event; (3)     if the organiser does not comply with the order to end the public event, shall directly address the participants of the public event and set an additional time for compliance with the order to end the public event. 2.     In the event of non-compliance with the order to end the public event the police shall take the necessary measures to end the public event ... 3.     The procedure for ending a public event as set out in paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply in the event of mass disorder, mob violence, arson, or other situations requiring urgent action. ... 4.     Failure to obey lawful orders from police officers or resistance to them by certain participants of the public event may incur liability as provided for by law.” Section 18 Provision of conditions for holding a public event “1.     The organiser of a public event, officials and other citizens shall not be entitled to prevent the participants in a public event from expressing their opinions in a manner that does not violate public order and the procedure for holding a public event.” 46.     Prior to 8 June 2012 the relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of 30 December 2001 read as follows: Article 19 § 3     Refusal to obey a lawful order of a police officer ... “Failure to obey a lawful order or demand of a police officer ... in connection with the performance of their official duties related to maintaining public order and security, or impeding the performance by them of their official duties, shall be punishable by a fine of between 500 and 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) or by administrative imprisonment of up to fifteen days.” Article 20 § 2 Breaches of the established procedure for the organisation or conduct of public gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, marches or pickets “1.     Breaches of the established procedure for the organisation of public gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, marches or pickets shall be punishable by an administrative fine of between ten and twenty times the minimum wage, payable by the organisers. 2.     Breaches of the established procedure for the conduct of public gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, marches or pickets shall be punishable by an administrative fine of between RUB 1,000 and RUB 2,000 for the organisers, and between RUB 500 and RUB 1,000 for the participants.” Article 27 § 2     Transfer of individuals to a police station “1.     The transfer, that is, the removal by force of an individual for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report, if this cannot be done at the place where the offence was discovered and if the drawing up of a report is mandatory, shall be carried out: (1)     by the police ... ... 2.     The transfer operation shall be carried out as quickly as possible. 3.     The transfer shall be recorded in a transfer operation report, an administrative offence report or an administrative detention report. The transferred person shall be given a copy of the transfer operation report if he or she so requests.” Article 27 § 3     Administrative detention “1.     Administrative detention or short-term restriction of an individual’s liberty may be applied in exceptional cases if this is necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative offence or to secure the enforcement of any penalty imposed by a judgment concerning an administrative offence. ... ... 3.     Where the detained person so requests, his or her family, the administrative department at his or her place of work or study and his or her defence counsel shall be informed of his or her whereabouts. ... 5.     The detained person shall have his or her rights and obligations under this Code explained to him or her, and the corresponding entry shall be made in the administrative arrest report.” Article 27 § 4     Administrative detention report “1.     Administrative detention shall be recorded in a report ... 2.     ... If he or she so requests, the detained person shall be given a copy of the administrative detention report.” Article 27 § 5     Duration of administrative detention “1.     The duration of administrative detention shall not exceed three hours, except in the cases set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. 2.     Persons subject to administrative proceedings concerning offences involving unlawful crossing of the Russian border ... may be subject to administrative detention for up to 48 hours. 3.     Persons subject to administrative proceedings concerning offences which are punishable, among other administrative sanctions, by administrative imprisonment ( административный арест ) may be subject to administrative detention for up to 48   hours. 4.     The term of the administrative detention is calculated from the time when [a person] transferred in accordance with Article 27 § 2 is taken [to the police station], and in respect of a person in a state of alcoholic intoxication, from the time of his sobering up.” 47.     On 8 June 2012 the Code of Administrative Offences was amended (Law no.   65-FZ), in particular as follows. -     A breach of the procedure for organising or running a public event by an organiser became punishable by a fine of between RUB 10,000 and RUB   20,000 or up to forty hours of community work (Article 20 § 2 (1)). -     The organisation or running of a public event without notifying the competent public authority became punishable by a fine of between RUB   20,000 and RUB 30,000 or up to fifty hours of community work (Article 20 § 2 (2)). -     Stricter penalties were introduced for the above actions or inaction where they obstructed pedestrians or traffic, or caused damage to health or property (Article 20 § 2 (3 and 4)). Separate offences concerned violations by an event participant of the procedure for running the event ((5)) and where such violations caused damage to health or property ((6)). -     Article 4.5 of the Code was amended to increase the limitation period for the offence under Article   20 § 2 from two months to one year. 48.     On 26   June 2018 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted the Resolution “On certain questions arising during judicial examination of administrative cases and cases on administrative offences related to the application of the legislation on public events”. To ensure consistency in judicial practice the Supreme Court provided the judiciary with guidelines on application of the legislation, primarily the Public Events Act and the Code of Administrative Offences, in resolving administrative disputes and applying administrative liability, indicating in particular: -     that an organiser’s failure to notify a public event was to be classified under Article 20 § 2 (2-4) of the Code, whereas the holding of a public event which had been refused by the authorities constituted an offence on the part of the organiser under (1) of the same provision (§§ 28-29 of the Supreme Court Resolution); -     that the failure by a participant in a public event to comply with lawful orders or instructions of the police was to be classified under Article 20 §   2   (5) of the Code of Administrative Offences, which was in these circumstances to be regarded as a lex specialis in relation to Article   19 §   3   (1) of the Code (§   33 of the Resolution); -     that the concept of a non-authorised event included events conducted without notification as well as events in respect of which the competent authorities had rejected the notification; -     that transfer to a police station for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report and/or administrative detention in exceptional cases would be justified only if it was otherwise impossible to identify the committed offence, to establish the identity of the offender, to examine the case concerning the administrative offence correctly and in a timely manner or to enforce the administrative sentence; in particular, administrative detention could be justified by a demonstrated risk of the perpetrator resuming the unlawful acts or absconding, by the absence of a fixed residence, or by the need to carry out procedural acts or to secure the evidence (§ 40 of the Resolution). III.     RELEVANT MATERIALS 49.     At the date of adoption of the present judgment, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers is continuing its supervision of the pending execution of the judgment in Lashmankin and Others , cited above. Most recently, at the 1318 th meeting of the Committee of Ministers (June 2018, DH) a decision was adopted (CM/Del/Dec(2018)1318/H46-21) containing, in particular, the following statement as regards the general measures: “6.     [the Ministers’ Deputies] recalled also the Council of Europe’s readiness, recently expressed by the Secretary General, to assist the Russian Federation in the work to improve its legislation in the field of freedom of assembly; 7.     noted, as regards judicial practice, a number of positive developments, in the form of a series of decisions from the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court over the last years, including an overview of the practice of international bodies and the case-law of the European Court concerning freedom of assembly, prepared by the Supreme Court, as well as its   ongoing efforts to adopt further guidance to the domestic courts on certain issues arising in administrative cases and administrative offences cases regarding the application of the legislation governing the procedure for the organisation and the holding of public events, and encouraged these developments; 8.     further stressed the need to rapidly adopt additional measures, whether in the form of regulations or training and awareness raising measures, to ensure that the practice of relevant municipal authorities and the police, including as regards the use of force, the dispersal of public events and the arrest of participants, is brought into line with the requirements of the Convention and highlighted the potential interest of the wide dissemination of the guidelines prepared by the Venice Commission and the OSCE (CDL-AD(2014)046 - available also in Russian).” 50.     The Follow-up Memorandum of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on Freedom of Assembly in the Russian Federation, dated 5   September 2017 (accessed on https://rm.coe.int/follow-up-memorandum-on-freedom-of-assembly-in-the-russian-federation-/16807517aa ), in so far as relevant, reads as follows: Dispersal of peaceful assemblies and arrests of participants “21.     Whereas ensuring the safety of participants and public order in general is certainly a legitimate consideration, this should not translate into a lack of tolerance towards peaceful public events which have not been agreed with the authorities. The 2012 amendments to the legislation on assemblies gave broad grounds for the dispersal of public events, including any irregularities in the organisation or the conduct of public events, some of which are not clearly defined in law. As already noted in paragraph 15 above, one of the concerns about the 2012 amendments expressed by the Presidential Council was precisely the lack of clarity in terms of which actions or omissions can trigger administrative liability. The earlier clarifications by the Constitutional Court that there must be compelling public order considerations ( veskiye dovody ) to make holding a public event impossible, seem to have had little effect in practice. A notable example is the violent dispersal and arrests of hundreds of protesters - because of the absence of a prior authorisation from the authorities - during a spontaneous but peaceful gathering on the occasion of the verdict in the Bolotnaya case in February 2014. ... 23.     There have also been reports of a growing intolerance towards unauthorised public events involving relatively low numbers of peaceful participants. This has included even single-person pickets, which are formally exempt from the agreement procedure. The following examples are illustrative of this tendency: the apprehension and escort to a police station of six activists for reading the Russian Constitution aloud in front of the State Duma on 12 September 2016; the reportedly violent arrest in Beslan and imposition of community service upon five mothers of victims of the September 2004 terrorist attack, who wished to commemorate its 12 th anniversary while wearing t-shirts with inscriptions critical of the authorities; the apprehension of separate solo picketers, including minors, demonstrating with blank sheets of paper and duct-taped mouths in Moscow on 1 July 2017; and the apprehension of four animal rights activists picketing at a distance of 50 metres from one another in Ekaterinburg on 7 June 2017. 24.     The need to maintain public order should not be interpreted in such a way as to strip the right to freedom of peaceful assembly of its meaning. According to international standards, if the domestic legal framework foresees a notification procedure, its objective should be to allow State authorities the opportunity to facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly. Failure to notify the authorities of an assembly does not render it unlawful and should not be used as a basis for dispersing it. ... 25.     The Commissioner welcomes the initiative of the Human Rights Council to prepare amendments to the legal framework governing public events in co-operation with the National Guard, and supports the statements made by the Federal Ombudsman and the Ombudsman of St Petersburg regarding the need to reinforce the right to freedom of assembly and safeguards against arbitrary application of restrictive measures.” IV.     PREPARATORY WORKS 51.     The relevant part of the preparatory work on Article 18 of the Convention (see Collected edition of the “ Travaux Préparatoires ” of the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff, vol. IV, 1977, pp. 130, 179-181 and 955) reads as follows: “... the international collective guarantee will have, as its purpose, to ensure that no State shall in fact aim at suppressing the guaranteed freedom, by means of minor measures which, while made with the pretext of organizing the exercise of these freedoms on its territory, or of safeguarding the letter of the law, have the opposite effect. ... It is legitimate and necessary to limit, sometimes even to restrain, individual freedoms, to allow everyone the peaceful exercise of their freedom and to ensure the maintenance of morality, of the general well-being, of the common good and of public need. When the State defines, organises, regulates and limits freedoms for such reasons, in the interest of, and for the better insurance of, the general well-being, it is only fulfilling its duty. That is permissible; that is legitimate. But when it intervenes to suppress, to restrain and to limit these freedoms for, this time, reasons of state; to protect itself according to the political tendency it represents, against an opposition which it considers dangerous; to destroy fundamental freedoms which it ought to make itself responsible for coordinating and guaranteeing, then it is against public interest if it intervenes. Then the laws which it passes are contrary to the principle of international guarantee. ... [e]very State which violates human rights and above all the rights of freedom, will always have an excuse; moral