CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 1 juin 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BARKHATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 3628/18 and 19 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 1 June 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Barkhatova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Anja Seibert-Fohr , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 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 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, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion in application no.   3628/18, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time ‑ ‑ imit 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), 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 its Protocols, 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. 13.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v.   Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   54381/08 and   5   others, §§   115-31, 10   April 2018; and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§   34-36, 8   October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§   58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); and Tsvetkova and Others , cited above, §§ 186-88, and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles   5 and 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15.     Lastly, the Court has examined the remainder of the complaints raised by the applicants in applications nos.   5157/18, 31838/18 and 12606/19 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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 the applicants’ complaints 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, decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles   5 and 6 of the Convention and declares the remainder of applications nos. 5157/18, 31838/18 and 12606/19 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto 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 1 June 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Faris Vehabović   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]     3628/18 23/12/2017 Irina Alekseyevna BARKHATOVA 1986 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Anti-corruption manifestation Sochi 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 12/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   3,500     3863/18 26/12/2017   and   24270/19 11/04/2019 Svetlana Anatolyevna UTKINA 1968 Andreyev Viktor Alekseyevich St Petersburg Opposition manifestation St Petersburg 29/04/2017   Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 27/07/2019   Political manifestation St Petersburg 07/10/2018   Rally in support of Khabarovsk and Belarus protests St Petersburg 15/08/2020 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO     Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000     35 hours’ compulsory work     5 days’ administrative arrest   10 days’ administrative detention St Petersburg City Court 11/07/2017   Moscow City Court 22/08/2019       St Petersburg City Court 15/10/2018   St Petersburg City Court 18/02/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - three of the above sets of proceedings, which ended with the final judgments of 15/10/2018, 22/08/2019 and 18/02/2021, respectively. 5,000     5157/18 08/01/2018 Yuliya Viktorovna MYSHEVA 1986 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation Moscow 26/03/2017   Rally in support of A. Navalnyy Moscow 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000     fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 24/07/2017     Moscow City Court 09/11/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 26/03/2017, and (ii) 31/01/2021, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on both occasions; delayed escorting to a police station on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings. 4,000     7553/18 27/01/2018   and   12606/19 05/02/2019 Yelena Anatolyevna PARIY 1969 Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich Yekaterinburg "Stroll in Support of Opposition movement "Artpodgotovka"" Yekaterinburg 23/07/2017             Manifestation against the pension reform Yekaterinburg 09/09/2018 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   and   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 9 days of administrative arrest   and   fine of RUB 10,000     15 days of administrative detention Sverdlovsk Regional Court 01/08/2017   and   Sverdlovsk Regional Court 14/11/2017   Sverdlovsk Regional Court 14/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 09/09/2018 and 11/09/2018 as administrative suspect: no evidence/ assessment of any exceptional circumstances under the CAO;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings (all sets of proceedings).   6,000     13182/18 26/02/2018 Vasiliy Eduardovich LI 1999 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption manifestation Vladivostok 12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 500 Primorye Regional Court 30/08/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 12/06/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     26103/18 10/05/2018 Andrey Vasilyevich ZHUZHGOV 1969 Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich Sochi Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy Krasnodar 07/11/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 35 hours of compulsory work Krasnodar Regional Court 06/12/2017   3,500     31838/18 25/06/2018 Petr Valeryevich MASLOV 1988 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation Moscow 12/06/2017   Rally in support of A. Navalnyy Moscow 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000     fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 12/04/2018     Moscow City Court 17/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention (i) on 12/06/2017, and (ii) on 31/01/2021, in each case for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings, final judgments issued on 12/04/2018 and 17/05/2021 4,000     55764/18 13/11/2018 Ilya Khaimovich MYASKOVSKIY 1971     Manifestation against the pension reform Nizhniy Novgorod 09/09/2018   Rally in memory of Boris Nemtsov Nizhniy Novgorod 25/02/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 20 days’ administrative detention     20 days’ administrative detention Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 14/11/2018     Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 16/05/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 11/09/2018 and 12/09/2018 as administrative suspect;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 12/09/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 6,000     1523/19 14/12/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich KAN 1986 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Opposition manifestation Cheboksary 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 03/07/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   22697/19 12/04/2019 Svetlana Valeryevna LOZOVSKAYA 1975 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against the pension reform Ulan-Ude 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic 15/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 3,500   29381/19 16/05/2019   and   27859/20 12/06/2020 Valeriya Ivanovna SKOROBOGATOVA 1970     29381/19 Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow   27859/20 Timakova Kristina Igorevna Moscow Opposition manifestation Moscow 05/05/2018     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000       fine of RUB 250,000 (not paid by the applicant)   Moscow City Court 16/11/2018       Moscow City Court 22/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 05/05/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; and (ii) 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect: no evidence/ assessment of any "exceptional circumstances" under the CAO;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (both sets of proceedings)   4,000     9711/20 30/01/2020 Nikita Igorevich PETROV 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 12/11/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings.   3,500   10236/20 12/02/2020 Nikolay Andreyevich LOGVIN 1993 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov Moscow 12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 150,000   Moscow City Court 12/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention there on 12/06/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     10704/20 17/02/2020 Andrey Viktorovich OREL 1977 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 14/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 14/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   14243/20 22/01/2020 Petr Nikolayevich ALESHIN 1965 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   25541/20 03/06/2020 Artemiy Sergeyevich BOBROV 1992 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 10/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting on 10/08/2019 to the police office for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours (raised on appeal) 4,000   31415/20 30/06/2020 Daniil Konstantinovich LATYSHEV 1999 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Opposition manifestation for freedom of assembly Moscow 30/01/2019 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 200,000   Moscow City Court 30/09/2019 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.