CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE6823C01 { margin-top:34pt; 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 } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s3756EA5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB43C89C4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:20pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; 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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; 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 } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD6F69EE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.05pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s30829533 { margin-left:3.66pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1B7C2278 { width:122.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s3FB9419C { font-family:Arial; color:#4d5156 } .s1EF8CBDB { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; color:#4d5156 } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sD257D4B4 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sE8489E90 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sE8787440 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC878CED { margin-left:11.67pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9452E505 { margin-left:16.12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.88pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sEC838917 { height:3.7pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF BRYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 22515/14)   JUDGMENT   Art 35 § 2 (b) • Matter already submitted to another international procedure • Inter-state arbitration proceedings under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the detention of a vessel sailing under the flag of the Netherlands and the Greenpeace activists on board • Subject-matter, objectives of procedures and complainants before the Court and the arbitral tribunal substantially different Art 34 • Victim • Settlement reached in inter-State dispute awarding, inter alia , the applicants’ compensation, not depriving them of their victim status • Lack of acknowledgment by the respondent Government, at the domestic and international level, of a Convention violation • General amnesty resulting in discontinuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants, not relating to their specific situation or acknowledging a breach of their rights Art 5 § 1 • Art 5 § 1 (c) • Unlawful arrest and detention • Applicants’ unacknowledged detention on board the vessel following a protest at an offshore oil drilling platform in the Pechora Sea within the Russian Federation’s exclusive economic zone • Subsequent arrest and detention arbitrary Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Unlawful nature of detention impacting on lawfulness of interference   STRASBOURG 27 June 2023 FINAL   27/09/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bryan and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Yonko Grozev,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   22515/14) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by thirty applicants (“the applicants”), on 17 March 2014; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning their detention and the alleged interference with their right to freedom of expression; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (“the Netherlands”), the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden (“Sweden”), the Government of Ukraine (“Ukraine”) and two non ‑ governmental organisations (NGOs), the Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) and ARTICLE 19, who were granted leave to intervene in the written procedure by the President of the Section (Article 36 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court) and the fact that the Governments of Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United Kingdom did not submit any comments; the decision of the Court not to hold a hearing under Rule 54 § 5; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an ad hoc judge, applying by analogy Rule 29 §   2 of the Rules of Court (see, for a similar situation, Kutayev v.   Russia , no.   17912/15, §§ 5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 6 June 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present application concerns a protest action attempted by the applicants – thirty Greenpeace activists, including two freelance journalists – at the Prirazlomnaya offshore oil drilling platform, located in the Pechora Sea within the exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”) of the Russian Federation, and their subsequent arrest and detention. THE FACTS 2.     A list of the applicants, their personal details and details of their cases are set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr   S.A.   Golubok and Mr J. Teulings lawyers practising, respectively, in Russia and in the Netherlands, and later also assisted by Mr M. de Jong, lawyer practicing in the Netherlands. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr M. Galperin, former representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Arrest of the applicants 5 .     Since 2010 Greenpeace International and other national and regional Greenpeace organisations have been promoting a “Save the Arctic” campaign. The objective of the campaign is to “secure international agreement to create a global sanctuary in the uninhabited area around the North Pole and a ban on offshore oil-drilling and industrial fishing in Arctic waters”. In the course of this campaign Greenpeace has staged a number of peaceful protests at sea, including in August 2012 at the Russian offshore oil production platform Prirazlomnaya , which is located in the Pechora Sea within the exclusive economic zone of Russia (“the EEZ”). 6 .     An ownership certificate dated 26 April 2012 issued by the State Registry of Vessels states that “vessel – MISP [marine ice-resistant stationary platform] Prirazlomnaya ” belonged to the Russian companies Gazprom JSC (93.6%) and Gazprom Neft Shelf LLC (6.4%). On 23 October 2012, by a final judgment in case no. A26-3152/2012, the St Petersburg Thirteenth Appellate Commercial Court held that on 26 September 2012 the Prirazlomnaya had been registered as a marine ice-resistant stationary platform and should be treated as such. The Prirazlomnaya reportedly commenced oil production in December 2013 and is operated by Gazprom Neft Shelf LLC. 7 .     In September 2013 the “Arctic 30” (twenty-eight Greenpeace activists (including a Greenpeace press-officer, Mr Allakhverdov) and two freelance journalists (Mr Bryan and Mr Sinyakov)) travelled to the Pechora Sea (the south-eastern part of the Barents Sea) on board a vessel called the Arctic Sunrise , which was sailing under the flag of the Netherlands. The activists intended to stage a peaceful protest at the platform. They informed the Prirazlomnaya operator of their plan, supplying a description of the form the protest would take (“non-violent direct action”), and stating that some activists would scale the platform and set up a survival capsule where they would stay until Gazprom dropped its plans to drill for oil in the Arctic. The Russian Coast Guard was likewise informed about the forthcoming protest. 8.     On 16 September 2013 the crew on the Russian Coast Guard vessel the Ladoga detected the Arctic Sunrise in the southern part of the Barents Sea in the vicinity of the Prirazlomnaya . They sent a radio signal informing the crew of the Arctic Sunrise , in English, that (i) they had steered a course that was in breach of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which provided for safe navigation around, inter alia , offshore structures, including the Prirazlomnaya platform, which was within the Russian EEZ; (ii) they had no permission to transit Russian territorial waters or to use the Northern Sea Route; and (iii) countermeasures would be applied against the Arctic Sunrise . The Arctic Sunrise set a course for the Kara Strait. 9.     On 17 September 2013 the Arctic Sunrise steered a course towards the Prirazlomnaya . The crew of the Ladoga alerted the Arctic Sunrise to the Notice to Mariners concerning the Prirazlomnaya (see paragraph 36 below) and issued a warning not to enter the platform’s three-nautical-mile danger zone or its five-hundred-metre exclusion zone. After that, the Arctic Sunrise stayed outside a three-nautical-mile radius of the platform. 10.     On 18 September 2013 five inflatable boats left the Arctic Sunrise and headed towards the Prirazlomnaya , carrying a survival capsule with them. The Arctic Sunrise remained outside the three-nautical-mile zone around the Prirazlomnaya . When the survival capsule’s towline snapped, the Arctic Sunrise retrieved the capsule and the activists on the inflatable boats went on without it to the Prirazlomnaya platform. 11 .     Two of the applicants (Ms Sini Annukka Saarela and Mr Marco Paolo Weber) began scaling the outside structure of the platform with the aim of unfurling a banner protesting against the imminent commencement of oil extraction at the Prirazlomnaya platform. According to the applicants, the climbers did not intend to reach the deck or take control of the platform and their ropes were attached about ten metres below the deck. In response to those actions the Ladoga sent two unmarked inflatables, each manned by at least three Russian State agents wearing balaclavas and armed with weapons. The agents threw lines towards the motors of the Greenpeace inflatables and threatened the activists with guns and knives. Water cannon was fired from the platform at the two climbers and they climbed down. The Russian agents took the climbers on to the Ladoga and the Greenpeace inflatables returned to the Arctic Sunrise . The Ladoga then repeatedly radioed the Arctic Sunrise , ordering it to stop and to allow an investigation team on board on the grounds that the activists had attacked the Prirazlomnaya platform and were suspected of piracy and terrorism. The Arctic Sunrise refused to comply, the captain arguing that it was in international waters and requesting the return of the two climbers. When agents from one of the Ladoga inflatables attempted to board the Arctic Sunrise , it undertook evasive manoeuvres. The Arctic Sunrise continued cruising in the vicinity of the Prirazlomnaya platform awaiting the return of the two climbers. 12.     On 19 September 2013, after another order to stop and to allow an investigation team on board, armed agents of the Russian Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) boarded the Arctic Sunrise from a helicopter. The FSB agents took control of the vessel and its crew. Sometime later on that day the two climbers (Ms Saarela and Mr Weber) were transferred from the Ladoga to the Arctic Sunrise . 13.     On 20 September 2013 the commanding officer of the Ladoga decided to move the Arctic Sunrise to the port of Murmansk in order to initiate administrative-offence proceedings against the captain, Mr Willcox, under Article 19.4 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) (see paragraph 33 below) for failure to comply with the lawful order of an officer within the EEZ to stop a vessel and allow an inspection. Between 20 and 24   September 2013 the Arctic Sunrise was towed to Murmansk. Criminal proceedings against the applicants 14 .     On 24 September 2013, when the Arctic Sunrise entered Russian territorial waters near Murmansk, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation opened criminal proceedings against the applicants for piracy. The decision referred to an “attack” by unidentified individuals using the Arctic Sunrise against the Prirazlomnaya , the latter being referred to as a “marine vessel – marine ice-resistant stationary platform”. A group of investigators led by Captain T. under the command of General M. were appointed to carry out the investigation. On the same day the applicants were transferred from the Arctic Sunrise to the premises of the investigative authorities. On 24 and 25 September 2013 they were officially arrested as suspects. 15 .     On 26, 27 and 29 September 2013 (see the appendix) the Leninskiy District Court of Murmansk (“the District Court”) authorised the applicants’ detention until 24   November 2013. The District Court found that the prosecution had reasonable grounds to suspect the applicants of the particularly serious crime of piracy committed by a group of persons and to consider that the applicants, mostly foreign nationals, might abscond or interfere with the investigation. It determined that their pre-trial detention had begun on 24 September 2013. The applicants appealed against the detention orders, arguing that there were no grounds for bringing charges of piracy since the Prirazlomnaya was clearly not a vessel. The applicants also asserted that their arrest and detention had been unlawful because, among other reasons, they had not been brought before a judge within forty-eight hours of their actual arrest. In the proceedings before the District Court, Mr   Allakhverdov stated that he was the head of Greenpeace’s press unit and Mr Sinyakov pointed out that he was a freelance journalist. 16.     On 2 and 3 October 2013 the applicants were charged with committing piracy “under the disguise of environmental defence activities”. 17 .     On 7 October 2013 the District Court ordered the arrest of the Arctic Sunrise . 18 .     On various dates between 8 and 24 October 2013 (see the appendix), the Murmansk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the applicants’ detention orders on appeal. The Regional Court agreed, in particular, with the reasoning of the District Court that the prosecuting authorities had had a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed piracy, although the objective and subjective elements of the crime of piracy would be determined later on the basis of the evidence during the criminal proceedings against the applicants. As for the status of the Prirazlomnaya , the Regional Court noted that it was registered in the State Registry of Vessels with no mention of the word “platform”. The Regional Court also held that the applicants had not been detained when the Arctic Sunrise had been towed to Murmansk. After their arrival in Murmansk the procedure for the applicants’ arrest had complied with the legal requirements and time limits. 19 .     In the proceedings in the Regional Court, the three journalist applicants (Mr Allakhverdov, Mr Bryan and Mr Sinyakov) also referred to their professional occupation and contended that they had only been present to report on the protest action. Two applicants, Mr D’Alessandro and Mr   Haussmann, said that as members of Greenpeace they had only ever taken part in peaceful protests. The Regional Court held that the pre-trial detention of Mr Allakhverdov had been justified because, as a Greenpeace employee, he “could be in possession of information concerning the group’s structure and plans”. The Regional Court refused to consider Mr Bryan as a journalist because, as the court established, he had no employment contract with any foreign publisher and was not accredited as a journalist on the territory of Russia. The Regional Court did not address the same argument with regard to Mr Sinyakov but stated only that he had no official employment and had been a flight risk. The Regional Court ignored the arguments of Mr   D’Alessandro and Mr Haussmann on this point. 20 .     On 21 October 2013 General M. wrote to Captain T. that it had been established that the Prirazlomnaya platform was not a vessel but a port facility. That conclusion precluded criminal liability for piracy and the applicants’ actions were therefore to be reclassified as hooliganism. 21 .     On 23 October 2013 Captain T. issued a decision to amend the charges against the applicants to hooliganism. On various dates between 24 and 31   October 2013 (see the appendix) the applicants were charged with hooliganism. No information has been submitted to the Court as to whether the reasons for their continuing pre-trial detention were reviewed by the domestic courts after the charges against them were amended. 22.     On 11 and 12 November 2013 the applicants were transferred to St   Petersburg. On various dates between 18 and 28 November 2013 (see the appendix) the applicants were granted bail. Eventually, on various dates between 20 and 29 November 2013 (see the appendix) the applicants were released. 23 .     On 18   December 2013 the Russian Parliament enacted an amnesty of people accused or convicted of certain less serious offences (including hooliganism) to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. On 24 and 25 December 2013 the criminal prosecution against the applicants was discontinued because of the amnesty. Arbitration proceedings under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 24.     On 4 October 2013 the Netherlands initiated inter-state arbitration proceedings against Russia pursuant to Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“the UNCLOS”), in connection with the measure taken by Russia against the Arctic Sunrise . On 22 November 2013 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) granted the request of the Netherlands for provisional measures and issued an order prescribing Russia (i) to immediately release the vessel Arctic Sunrise and all persons who had been detained, upon the posting of a bond or other financial security by the Netherlands which was set at 3,600,000 euros and (ii) to ensure that the vessel Arctic Sunrise and all persons who had been detained were allowed to leave the territory and maritime areas under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. The Government of the Netherlands alleged in its memorandum, submitted in the arbitration proceedings, that Russia had not fully complied with the provisional measures prescribed by the ITLOS, as the arrest of the vessel (see paragraph 17 above) had been lifted by the Investigative Committee only on 6 June 2014 and the non-Russian nationals had been cleared to depart the country only on 26 and 27 December 2013. 25.     On 22 October 2013 Russia sent a Note Verbale to the Netherlands referring to the Declaration it made when ratifying UNCLOS, in which it stated that it did not accept the procedures under UNCLOS which entailed binding decisions with respect to disputes concerning law-enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights of jurisdiction. In another Note Verbale dated 27 February 2014 and addressed to the Permanent Court of Arbitration Russia stated that “[the] Russian side confirms its refusal to take part in this arbitration and abstains from providing comments both on the substance of the case and procedural matters.” 26.     On 26 November 2014 the arbitral tribunal constituted under Article   3 of Annex VII of UNCLOS issued its award on jurisdiction stating that “[t]he Declaration of Russia upon ratification of [UNCLOS] does not have effect of excluding the present dispute from the procedures of Section 2 of Part XV [UNCLOS] and, therefore, does not have the effect of excluding the present dispute from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.” 27.     The Russian Federation did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. 28.     On 14 August 2015 the arbitral tribunal issued its award on the merits of the case. Having examined the video recorded at the Prirazlomnaya and interrogation records, it held, inter alia , that the two activists who had climbed the platform, Ms Saarela and Mr Weber, had been forced to descend from it by the employees of the platform firing water cannons at them. 29 .     The arbitral tribunal found, among other things, that (i)     while, in interpreting provisions of the UNCLOS, it could have regard to the extent necessary to rules of customary international law, including international human rights standards, it did not have jurisdiction to apply provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), such as, for example, the right to liberty and security, directly to persons on board a vessel or to determine breaches of such provisions; (ii)     the boarding, seizure and detention of the Arctic Sunrise on 19   September 2013 could not have been justified as an exercise of the right of visit to a vessel on suspicion of piracy under Article 110 of the UNCLOS and that those actions did not comply with the UNCLOS; and (iii)     all law-enforcement measures taken by Russia in respect of the Arctic Sunrise following its unlawful boarding, seizure and detention of the vessel had had no basis in international law. 30 .     On 10 July 2017 the arbitral tribunal issued its award determining the compensation to be paid under the provisions of UNCLOS by the Russian Federation to the Netherlands for the damage caused. It ordered the Russian Federation to pay 5.4 million euros (EUR) to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which included compensation for “non ‑ material damage to the Arctic 30 for their wrongful arrest, prosecution and detention” in the amount of EUR   600,000. 31 .     On 8 November 2019 the applicants informed the Court that they had each received a payment, in accordance with the terms of a confidential settlement agreement reached in the inter-State dispute between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Russian Federation. In particular, the Kingdom of the Netherlands had transferred a sum of EUR 2,700,159.16 to Greenpeace International, which in turn had transferred a sum of EUR 605,000 to the thirty applicants, divided into equal shares (a sum of EUR 20,167 had been transferred to each of the bank accounts designated by the applicants). Neither the applicants nor Greenpeace International had been a party to the settlement and they had not taken part in the negotiations. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 32.     The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Russian Federation are parties, provides as follows: Article 60 Artificial islands, installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone “1.     In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of: ... (b)     installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes; ... 2.     The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such ... installations and structures, including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal, health, safety and immigration laws and regulations.” 33 .     The Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation provided as follows, at the relevant time: Article 19.4 Failure to follow the lawful order of a public officer of a body exercising State or municipal supervision (control) “... 2.     Failure to follow the lawful command of a public officer ( должностное лицо ) working for the body protecting the continental shelf or the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation to stop a vessel, and impeding the exercise by such a public officer of the powers conferred upon him, including inspection of a vessel, -     shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine ... in the amount of fifteen thousand to twenty thousand roubles.” 34.     The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provided as follows, at the relevant time: Article 227 Piracy “1.     Any assault on a sea-going ship or a river-going boat with the aim of capturing other people’s property, committed using violence or under the threat of its use, shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of five to ten years. ... 3.     The actions referred to in the first or second part of this Article, if they have been committed by an organised group ..., shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of ten to fifteen years ...”. 35 .     Section 7 § 1 of the Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation defines a vessel as a mobile or stationary floating construction used for merchant shipping. Section 7 § 2 defines a “floating marine platform” as a vessel for exploration and for the exploitation of mineral and other inanimate seabed resources. 36 .     The Notice to Mariners no. 6618-6774 of 10 December 2011 issued by the Department of Navigation and Oceanography of the Russian Ministry of Defence gives the terrestrial coordinates of the Prirazlomnaya and refers to it as a drilling rig. THE LAW article 1 of the Convention 37.     The applicants and the respondent Government agreed, and the third ‑ party interveners who submitted comments (the Governments of the Netherlands, Sweden and Ukraine; and also MLDI and ARTICLE 19) did not object, that at the time when the events complained about by the applicants had taken place, the applicants had been within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see Pad and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 60167/00, § 54, 28 June 2007; Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, §§ 9 and 67, ECHR 2010; and Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 136-37, ECHR 2011). The Court notes that, since the Russian authorities exercised full and exclusive control over the Arctic Sunrise and its crew, at least de facto , from the time of its interception, in a continuous and uninterrupted manner until they arrived at Murmansk, the applicants were effectively within Russia’s jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see, for similar reasoning, Medvedyev and Others , cited above, §§ 66-67). jurisdiction Compliance with Article 35 §§ 2 (b) and 3 (a) of the Convention Compliance with Article 35 § 2 (b) (whether the application has been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement) 38 .     The Court observes that the factual circumstances giving rise to the present application have already been examined by an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with the UNCLOS (see paragraph 29 above). The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention is intended to avoid a situation where several international bodies would be simultaneously dealing with applications which are substantially the same. A situation of this type would be incompatible with the spirit and the letter of the Convention, which seeks to avoid a multiplicity of international proceedings relating to the same cases. In determining whether its jurisdiction is excluded by virtue of this Convention provision the Court would have to decide whether the case before it is substantially the same as a matter that has already been submitted to a parallel set of proceedings and, if that is so, whether the simultaneous proceedings may be seen as “another procedure of international investigation or settlement” within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention. An assessment of whether cases are sufficiently similar would usually involve the comparison of the parties in the respective proceedings, the relevant legal provisions relied on by them, the scope of their claims and the types of the redress sought. As regards the analysis of the character of parallel proceedings, the Court’s examination would not be limited to a formal verification but would extend, where appropriate, to ascertaining whether the nature of the supervisory body, the procedure it follows and the effect of its decisions are such that the Court’s jurisdiction is excluded by Article 35 §   2   (b) (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia , no.   14902/04, §§   520-22, 20   September 2011). The Court further reiterates that one of its functions in dealing with applications lodged under Article 34 is to render justice in individual cases and, if necessary, to afford just satisfaction (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §   182, 22   December 2020). 39.     The Court notes that in the present case, no objection was made by either the respondent Government or the intervening third parties to the Court’s examining the present application on account of the fact that the proceedings under the UNCLOS had taken place. The Court reiterates that its competence is restricted in relation to any applications falling within the scope of Article   35 § 2 (b) and it has no jurisdiction over such cases (see POA and Others v.   the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59253/11, § 27, 21 May 2013). For this reason, while the Government did not make any objections under this head, it is necessary for the Court to examine the issue of its own motion. It cannot set this admissibility criterion aside merely because the Government have not made a preliminary objection based upon it (ibid.). 40.     The Court notes that the arbitration proceedings were intergovernmental and concerned only Russia’s breach of obligations it owed to the Netherlands as the country under whose flag the vessel had sailed under the UNCLOS. The UNCLOS arbitral tribunal did not deal with the subject matter of the present application, that is to say, the complaints of the thirty applicants in their individual capacity of breaches of their rights under Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention and it expressly stated that it did not have jurisdiction to apply directly provisions of international human rights law, such as the relevant articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see paragraph 29 above). Furthermore, the applicants were not a party to those proceedings and the Government of the Netherlands were not acting before the UNCLOS tribunal as a representative of the applicants, who were not associated in the proceedings in any way (see, a contrario , POA and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59253/11, §§ 30-32, 21 May 2013). The Court therefore observes that not only the subject-matter and the objectives of both procedures, but also the complainants before the Court and the UNCLOS arbitral tribunal were substantially different (see, for instance, Celniku v. Greece , no. 21449/04, § 40, 5 July 2007; Illiu and Others v.   Belgium (dec.), no. 14301/08, 19 May 2009; Kavala v. Turkey , no.   28749/18, § 94, 10 December 2019; and Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası v. Turkey , no. 20641/05, § 38, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). In these circumstances, it can be concluded that the two matters are not “substantially the same” and the subject matter of the present individual application has not been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention. Compliance with Articles 34 and 35 § 3 (a) (whether the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violations) 41 .     The Court further notes that the applicants did receive a payment as a result of the settlement which was reached by the Governments of the Netherlands and Russia in their inter-State dispute and which, as the respondent Government submitted, was independent from the arbitration proceedings (see paragraphs 29-31 above). The Court must therefore determine whether the applicants have lost their victim status by having obtained financial redress. 42.     The applicants submitted that they had not lost their victim status because they had not been a party to either the arbitral proceedings or the settlement negotiations between the Governments of the Netherlands and Russia. They pointed out that the payment made to them had not been accompanied by any acknowledgment of violations of their rights and that the amount paid had not been sufficient to constitute just satisfaction within the meaning of Article 41 of the Convention. 43.     The respondent Government submitted that the agreement that they had reached with the Government of the Netherlands was an example of an amicable settlement of disputes, that its details had been made confidential and that the applicants had disclosed the amounts that they had received from Greenpeace. They further stated that the settlement agreement of 17 May 2019 reached within the framework of the inter-State case and the applicants’ complaint lodged with the Court under the Convention could not be regarded as parallel proceedings and that “it [could] not be unequivocally asserted” that the applicants had lost their victim status. Nevertheless, the compensation paid to the applicants “directly affect[ed] their status as potential victims” of violations of Convention provisions, and should in any case be taken into account by the Court. They further emphasised that (i) the Russian Federation had not taken part in the arbitration proceedings under UNCLOS because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction; (ii) the tribunal’s decision should not be viewed as a settlement of the dispute; and (iii) no amounts awarded in those proceedings should be used as the basis for calculation of just satisfaction, if any, in the proceedings before the Court. The Government of Ukraine, as a third-party intervening State, submitted that the applicants had not lost their victim notwithstanding the payment that had been received by them, “given the nature and the gravity of violations suffered and damage inflicted on them”. The Governments of the Netherlands and Sweden made no specific observations on this issue. 44.     The Court reiterates that it falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 80, ECHR 2012). The Court further reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of “victim” status unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (ibid., § 81). 45.     The Court considers that even though the amount of compensation obtained by the applicants may appear appropriate and sufficient, the Government did not submit any evidence that it had acknowledged, either at the domestic or the international level, that there had been a violation of the Convention. The Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicants were terminated following an amnesty (see paragraph 23 above). The amnesty, being of a general nature, did not, however, relate specifically to the applicants’ situation and did not acknowledge that there had been any breach of their rights (see Albayrak v. Turkey , no. 38406/97, § 33, 31 January 2008). In those circumstances, and in the absence of proof of any such acknowledgment, the Court considers that the applicants can still claim to be, under Article 34 of the Convention, the victims of the violations alleged, and that it has ratione personae jurisdiction to examine their complaint under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention (see, for similar reasoning, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano , cited above, §§ 84 and 87). Jurisdiction in respect of the respondent State 46.     Lastly, 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 and that the Court therefore has jurisdiction to deal with the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68‑73, 17 January 2023). Conclusion 47.     In the light of the above considerations, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to examine the admissibility and merits of the present application. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 48.     The applicants complained under Article 5 of the Convention that their initial arrest and detention had been arbitrary and not in accordance with the law. They further complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that their subsequent pre-trial detention had not been lawful or based on any reasonable suspicion of their having committed piracy. Article 5 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so ...” Admissibility Compatibility ratione materiae 49.     The Court notes that the parties were in dispute as to whether the deprivation of the applicants’ liberty between 18 and 24 September 2013, before they arrived in the port of Murmansk on 25 September 2013, had fallen to be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. The Court must therefore first determine whether this part of the applicants’ complaint is compatible ratione materiae with that provision. (a)    The parties’ submissions (i)       The Government’s submissions 50.     The Government submitted that the applicants had not been deprived of their liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention between 18   and 24 September 2013. They described the sequence of the events as follows. 51.     On 17   September 2013 a group of thirty people on board the Arctic Sunrise vessel had arrived at the location of the Prirazlomnaya platform, within the exclusive economic zone of Russia. Ignoring the warnings of border guards, some of those people had set off in five boats, crossed into the three-mile security zone around the Prirazlomnaya and attempted to board the platform. 52 .     The FSB had stopped the unlawful actions of two applicants, Ms   Saarela and Mr Weber, who had started scaling the platform with the use of climbing equipment. When those two applicants had been discovered by the border service, they had been in the water near the Prirazlomnaya . In accordance with the 1979 Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, the border guards had treated them as people in distress and had taken them on board the Ladoga to save their lives. First aid had been provided to them. On 19 Septemb