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 } .s10764627 { height:67.6pt } .sE4B40776 { height:50.8pt } .sD9DA4DFD { height:45pt } .sC399E089 { height:70.95pt } .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 DANILCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 3652/18 and 19 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 Danilchenko 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 organisers or participants 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 organisers or participants 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; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO; and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14   others, §§ 402-78, 7 February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, there is no need to examine 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]     3652/18 08/01/2018 Yevgeniy Anatolyevich DANILCHENKO 1980 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 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     3675/18 08/01/2018 Anastasia Lvovna AKOLZINA 1997 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 20/07/2017   3,500     3679/18 08/01/2018 Olga Vladimirovna LOZINA 1989 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 14/07/2017   3,500     4035/18 08/01/2018 Vladislav Arturovich AKOLZIN 1993 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 20/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     4060/18 08/01/2018 Stanislav Mikhailovich CHINDIN 1997 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 28/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26 ‑ 27/03/2017 detention in a police station for compiling an offence report 4,000     5253/18 17/01/2018 Aleksey Vladislavovich IVANOV 1979 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 18/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     7239/18 22/01/2018 Artur Vagifovich BALAKISHEV 1996 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Kaliningrad   12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 17/08/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 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     10057/18 08/02/2018 Ivan Pavlovich DEMIN 1972 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 08/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     11600/18 16/02/2018 Anton Aleksandrovich BYKOV 1987 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   13022/18 22/02/2018 Ilya Igorevich TITOV 1994 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 24/08/2017 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   13243/18 15/02/2018 Kirill Olegovich NORINSKIY 1999 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 15/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   14455/18 13/03/2018 Igor Vladimirovich NELOGOV 1985 Makarova Yelena Anatolyevna Yekaterinburg Opposition rally   Yekaterinburg   23/07/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 01/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   15809/18 19/03/2018 Viktor Nikolayevich KASYANOV 1986 Dobralskiy Aleksandr Igorevich Kaliningrad Anticorruption rally   Kaliningrad   12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 14/09/2017 (received on 09/10/2017) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   15811/18 19/03/2018 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KAZANOVSKIY 1990 Dobralskiy Aleksandr Igorevich Kaliningrad Anticorruption rally   Kaliningrad   12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 07/09/2017 (received on 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   15812/18 19/03/2018 Aleksandr Sergeyevich DUVANOV 1994 Dobralskiy Aleksandr Igorevich Kaliningrad Anticorruption rally   Kaliningrad   12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 14/09/2017 (received on 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   19761/18 11/04/2018 Yuriy Aleksandrovich BELSKIY 1985 Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 12/10/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report 4,000   23417/18 05/05/2018 Aleksandr Valeryevich KHIMICH 1996 Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich Sochi Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Krasnodar   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 13/11/2017   3,500   23880/18 04/05/2018 Vitaliy Mikhaylovich MOLODANOV 1973 Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich Sochi Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Krasnodar   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 06/12/2017   3,500   36242/18 19/07/2018 Artur Dmitriyevich BELYAKOV 1999 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Chelyabinsk   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 19/01/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - concerning the rally on 07/10/2017,   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - Chelyabinsk town administration refused to give official approval for another rally planned for 08/10/2017 (final decision on 05/09/2018, Supreme Court of Russia) 3,500   44205/18 07/09/2018 Marina Samuyelovna DEDALES 1989 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi LGBT-rights event   Moscow   11/05/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/07/2018 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.