CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 25 mai 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 } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 } .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 PAVLYUCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 7236/18 and 23 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 25 May 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pavlyuchenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 May 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 and Protocols thereto, 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 other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, or under Article 11 (applications nos.   7463/18 and 32297/18). 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 the 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 remaining complaints raised by some applicants; Holds that there has been a violation of Article   11 of the Convention in relation to the facts described in the appended table; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 25 May 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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]     7236/18 22/01/2018 Aleksey Georgiyevich PAVLYUCHENKO 1998 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Vladivostok, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 16/08/2017 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     7463/18 25/12/2017 Igor Valentinovich SHARAPOV 1966     Protest against the road tax system “Platon”   Khimki, 21/05/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO     fine of RUB 500     Moscow Regional Court 29/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 21 ‑ 23/05/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports 4,000     13248/18 28/02/2018 Petr Vladimirovich TROFIMOV 1970   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 29/08/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) on 12 ‑ 14/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report; (ii) on 10/06/2019 and 18/06/2019 escorting to and detention in a police station for (re-)compiling an offence report,     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings 5,000, jointly in respect of both applications lodged by the applicant     62551/19 18/11/2019 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Political protest   St Petersburg, 07/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 St Petersburg City Court 17/09/2019     26188/18 18/05/2018 Oleg Sergeyevich MASTRYUKOV 1992 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Distribution of leaflets to support A.   Navalnyy   Moscow, 09/07/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 20/11/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09/07/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report 4,000     27592/18 24/05/2018 Olga Mikhaylovna YATSKOVA 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don, 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Rostov Regional Court 28/11/2017   3,500     28369/18 08/06/2018 Timur Vladimirovich NESKUCHAYEV 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Distribution of leaflets to support A.   Navalnyy   Moscow, 09/07/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 08/12/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09/07/2017 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     29525/18 13/06/2018 Denis Islamovich BAKAYEV 1981 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Opposition rally   Moscow, 12/07/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 22/01/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/07/2017 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     29548/18 08/06/2018 Anton Vladimirovich SIDOROV 1990 Romanov Pavel Valeryevich Cheboksary Opposition rally   Cheboksary, 29/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 32 hours of community work Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic 12/12/2017   3,500   30493/18 18/06/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich KAZAKOV 1979 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Orenburg, 13/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 40 hours of community work Orenburg Regional Court 19/12/2017   3,500   32297/18 21/06/2018 Vitaliy Aleksandrovich NAKONECHNIKOV 1982 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Moscow, 09/07/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/12/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09/07/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report 4,000   32587/18 25/06/2018 Irina Aleksandrovna FAYZULINA 1976 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow Opposition rally   Berezniki, 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 25/12/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 3,500   34821/18 16/07/2018 Timofey Igorevich DEMIDENKO 1991 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 16/01/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 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   35400/18 17/07/2018 Irina Vladislavovna SAMARINA 1959 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Stavropol, 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 17/01/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 3,500   36988/18 27/07/2018 Anastasiya Mikhaylovna DEYNEKA 1998 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don, 24/12/2017 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 8 days of detention Rostov Regional Court 27/01/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 5,000   37059/18 16/07/2018 Albert Maratovich RAYANOV 1990   Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy   Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Novosibirsk, 30/09/2017   Rally against the pension reform   Novosibirsk, 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000         30 days of detention Novosibirsk Regional Court 16/01/2018       Novosibirsk Regional Court 14/09/2018   5,000, jointly in respect of both applications lodged by the applicant   41917/18 17/08/2018 Rally to support L.   Volkov and A.   Navalnyy   Novosibirsk, 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   6,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 20/02/2018   41375/18 29/07/2018 Veronika Viktorovna OVSYANNIKOVA 1999 Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Rally to support L.   Volkov and A.   Navalnyy   Novosibirsk, 07/10/2017   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 30/01/2018   3,500   43224/18 30/08/2018 Roman Yevgenyevich KARMATSKIY 1992 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Distribution of leaflets to support A.   Navalnyy   Moscow, 20/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 06/03/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 20/10/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report 4,000   46237/18 18/09/2018 Anna Borisovna YEREMEYEVA 1994 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don, 24/12/2017 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   75,000 Rostov Regional 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 4,500   50929/18 09/10/2018 Daniil Konstantinovich BEBEKIN 1999 Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Rally to support L.   Volkov and A.   Navalnyy   Novosibirsk, 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 10/04/2018   3,500   54858/18 01/11/2018 Genrikh En FON DESTIO 1995 Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna Moscow Event to support Telegram   Moscow, 16/04/2018 Article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 30/05/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 16 ‑ 17/04/2018 detention in a police station 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   58018/18 28/11/2018 Nadezhda Nikolayevna CHURAKOVA 1961 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Distribution of leaflets to support A.   Navalnyy   Moscow, 07/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 06/06/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 07/01/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report 4,000   58050/18 20/11/2018 Stepan Sergeyevich VYBOCH 1994 Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna Moscow Event to support Telegram   Moscow, 16/04/2018 Article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 24/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 16 ‑ 17/04/2018 detention in a police station 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.