CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 avril 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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; 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 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 } .s17C8E089 { height:78.05pt } .sFA4E884 { height:88.65pt } .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 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MIKLASHEVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2107/18 and 27 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 20 April 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Miklashevskaya and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 March 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 disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of public assemblies. 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   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR   2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR   2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR   2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4   December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3   October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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 as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12 .     Some 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 Butkevich v.   Russia , no.   5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§   115-31, 10   April 2018; Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, and Teslenko and Others v. Russia , nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§   72-74 and 81-82, 5   April 2022, as to administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; and Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§   58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, there is no need to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. 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, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 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 complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles   5 and 6 of the Convention; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; 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 20 April 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     2107/18 26/12/2017 Yelena Georgievna MIKLASHEVSKAYA 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     2199/18 26/12/2017 Roman Eldarovich GUST (BAKHTIAROV) 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 26/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     2379/18 22/12/2017 Maksim Nikolayevich KOVALENKO 1975 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     2383/18 22/12/2017 Kirill Sergeyevich KOZLOV 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 22/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26-27/03/2017 detention in a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     2389/18 22/12/2017 Aleksey Aleksandrovich MARKOV 1975 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 22/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     2394/18 28/12/2017 German Romanovich KONONOV 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 28/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     2442/18 28/12/2017 Anastasiya Mikhaylovna KORSHUNKOVA 1980 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 10/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     7567/18 27/01/2018 Roman Viktorovich PINAYEV 1989 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 Moscow City Court 28/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     10846/18 26/02/2018 Igor Alekseyevich GALITSKIY 1966 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 06/10/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   12805/18 16/02/2018 Denis Viktorovich PINAYEV 1985 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 Moscow City Court 18/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   12806/18 07/03/2018 Anton Alekseyevich YERMACHKOV 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 08/09/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   13603/18 14/03/2018 Stepan Borisovich IZYURGOV 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 20/09/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   13607/18 14/03/2018 Nikita Aleksandrovich KRUCHININ 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 14/09/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   16262/18 13/03/2018 Vyacheslav Nikolayevich NIKITIN 1989 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 18/09/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   16992/18 31/03/2018 Ilya Vitalyevich NAUMOV 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   17090/18 02/04/2018 Vasiliy Vladimirovich GOLOBOKOV 1978 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26-27/03/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   17107/18 02/04/2018 Aleksandra Sergeyevna ALEKSEYEVA 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow LGBT-rights event   Moscow   11/05/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 11/05/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   17476/18 04/04/2018 Anna Dmitriyevna TELNOVA 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 24/10/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to and detention a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   17774/18 27/03/2018 Aleksandr Rastyamovich TAGIROV 1988 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 28/09/2017   3,500   21846/18 16/04/2018 Aleksey Vadimovich TRUKHANOV 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 02/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   23849/18 04/05/2018 Kirill Dmitriyevich KARPOV 1996 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Yaroslavl   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Yaroslavl Regional Court 09/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   24443/18 12/05/2018 Kamran Rustamovich DYUGUSHEV 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Leafleting to support A.   Navalnyy   Cherepovets   21/09/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 25 hours of community work Vologda Regional Court 13/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   24469/18 14/05/2018 Bogdan Anatolyevich VASILENKO 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   500 Moscow City Court 20/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   24480/18 14/05/2018 Andrey Ivanovich ZAKHARCHENKO 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 20/12/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling an offence report (which was only compiled on 15/06/2017),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   24985/18 16/05/2018 Yuriy Aleksandrovich SKRYABIN 1974 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Leafleting to support A.   Navalnyy   Cherepovets   21/09/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Vologda Regional Court 16/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   25873/18 21/05/2018 Semen Sergeyevich OSIPOV 1994 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Yaroslavl   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Yaroslavl Regional Court 21/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   26987/18 29/05/2018 Vyacheslav Andreyevich LOBANOV 1998 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Yaroslavl   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Yaroslavl Regional Court 30/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   10537/20 17/02/2020 Anton Yevgenyevich MALISHEVSKIY 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Moscow City Court 06/11/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.