CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 février 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF GASKAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 10921/20 and 15 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 9 February 2023     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Gaskarov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023, 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.     The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20   September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirements allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence case which falls within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article   6 of the Convention. 8.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, including having studied the compliance with the six-month period under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question and concluded that it should be exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total whenever it either started to run or was due to expire at any time between 16 March and 15 June 2020), 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. 9 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.     The applicants 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 Frumkin v. Russia , no. 74568/12, §§ 81-142, 5 January 2016, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful administrative arrest. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     In applications nos. 52302/20, 52305/20 and 52307/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. 12.     The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. 13.     As regards the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about unfairness of proceedings, submitted by some of the applicants, the Court, having reached the conclusion about the lack of impartiality of the tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 9 above), does not consider it necessary to examine them separately. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   decides that it is not necessary to examine separately further complaints about unfair administrative-offence proceedings raised by some of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention, and dismisses the remainder of applications nos.   52302/20, 52305/20 and   52307/20 as inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   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; (b)   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 . Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     10921/20 19/02/2020 Aleksey Vladimirovich GASKAROV 1985 Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 30/08/2019 Moscow City Court   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 30/08/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900     12419/20 22/02/2020 Georgiy Anzorovich DARASELIYA 1986 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk fine of RUB 10,000 26/08/2019 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 12/06/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; arrested at 15:00, released at 20:20 on 12/06/2019.   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov/administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 26/08/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900     12472/20 18/02/2020 Lyubov Valeryevna LUKASHENKO 1995 Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 20/08/2019 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of legal grounds for arrest and escorting to the police station on 12/06/2019 in excess of 3 hours; arrested at 13:53, released at 21:56 on 12/06/2019.   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 20/08/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900     12687/20 28/02/2020 Nataliya Mikhaylovna SEKRETAREVA 1992     fine of RUB 10,000 28/08/2019 Moscow City Court   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under article 20.2 § 6 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 28/08/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900     26794/20 02/04/2020 Bogdan Sergeyevich DIYUK 1992 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 08/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 10/08/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; arrested at 18:30 on 10/08/2019 and detained for 4 hours.   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 08/10/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900     26871/20 16/04/2020 Karim Rustemovich GIZATULLIN 1996 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 18/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours: arrested at 17:30 on 27/07/2019 and detained for about 8 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 27/07/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 18/10/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900     26883/20 16/04/2020 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich DVURECHENSKIY 1983 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 16/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours: arrested at 17:30 on 27/07/2019 and detained for about 6 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 27/07/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 16/10/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900     26889/20 16/04/2020 Anton Sergeyevich LAPSHIN 1987 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 16/11/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours: arrested at 17:40 on 27/07/2019 and detained for about 10 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 27/07/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 16/11/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900     26897/20 16/04/2020 Igor   Leonidovich IVANOV 1978 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 23/11/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours: arrested at 16:40 on 27/07/2019 and detained for about 8 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 27/07/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 23/11/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900   29100/20 14/06/2020 Dmitriy Alekseyevich KOVALEV 2000 Gak Irina Vladimirovna Rostov-on-Don fine of RUB 10,000 21/10/2019 Rostov Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Unlawful detention on 10/08/2019, issue raised on appeal, detention in excess of 3 hours: arrested at 15:00 on 10/08/2019 and at 20:00 escorted to the court; he was released at 20:30 on the same day;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Rostov-on-Don in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Rostov Regional Court 21/10/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900   29237/20 14/06/2020 Ilya   Valeryevich MURADYAN 1997 Gak Irina Vladimirovna Rostov-on-Don fine of RUB 10,000 21/11/2019 Rostov Regional Court on Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - detention in excess of 3   hours for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest on 10/08/2019: arrested at 15:00 on 10/08/2019 and at 20:00 escorted to the court; he was released at 20:30 on the same day;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Rostov-on-Don in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Rostov Regional Court on 21/11/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900   29600/20 21/06/2020 Aleksey Yuryevich DYDOCHKIN 1989 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow fine of RUB 20,000 06/11/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 10/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; arrested at 19:50 on 10/08/2019 and detained for more than 4 hours.   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 20,000/ Moscow City Court on 06/11/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900   37577/20 18/08/2020 Maksim Sergeyevich STATSENKO 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 26/11/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 10/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours: arrested at 18:20 on 10/08/2019 and released at 3:36 on 11/08/2019.   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 26/11/2019 (appeal decision).   3,900   52302/20 31/10/2020 Tatyana Aleksandrovna KOLOBAKINA 2000 Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 17/06/2020 Moscow City Court Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/02/2020 in Moscow in manifestation in support of the accused in "Novoye velichiye" case/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 17/06/2020 (appeal decision).   3,900   52305/20 31/10/2020 Mikhail Alekseyevich AKSEL 1996 Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 16/06/2020 Moscow City Court Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/02/2020 in Moscow in manifestation in support of the accused in "Novoye velichiye" case/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 16/06/2020 (appeal decision).   3,900   52307/20 31/10/2020 Andrey Vladimirovich OVCHINNIKOV 1997 Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 14/05/2020 Moscow City Court Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/02/2020 in Moscow in manifestation in support of the accused in "Novoye velichiye" case/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 14/05/2020 (appeal decision).   3,900     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.