CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 décembre 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 } .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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; 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 } .s9BC756B { height:53.75pt } .s76194627 { height:60.2pt } .sCB8B756B { height:51.05pt } .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 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF GALIMULLIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 54923/21 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 7 December 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Galimullin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 November 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 applicants were represented by Mr Ivan Zhdanov, a lawyer admitted to practice in Russia. 3.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of nationwide protests in support of the jailed opposition leader, Aleksey Navalnyy. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 7.     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 8.     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. 9.     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). 10.     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. 11.     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”. 12 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 13.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 14 .     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention 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; and 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 15.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 12 and 14 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 16.     The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants 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. 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 17.     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 the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, and dismisses the remainder of the applications as inadmissible; Holds that there has been a breach of Article   11 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the 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 7 December 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   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 Location and date of the public event   Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1]     54923/21 29/10/2021 Insaf Vasilevich GALIMULLIN 1996 Kazan   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 12/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.35 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until the court hearing on 01/02/2021.     4,000     55718/21 05/11/2021 Danil Sergeyevich KASULIN 2002 Tver   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Tver Regional Court 19/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     55754/21 05/11/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SOLOKHA 2002 Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     55892/21 05/11/2021 Denis Vladimirovich MUKHOROTOV 2000 Voronezh   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 18/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.11   p.m. until 10.15 p.m. on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     55987/21 05/11/2021 Sana Aleksandrovna BEZMENOVA 1975 Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     55990/21 05/11/2021 Petr Borisovich KARTOYEV 1991 Kazan   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 11,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 12/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021;     4,000     55995/21 05/11/2021 Vadim Andreyevich GORYACHENKO 2003 Novosibirsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 14/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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. 4,000     56954/21 19/11/2021 Yekaterina Valeryevna MALYUTINA 1990 Vladimir   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 11,000 Vladimir Regional Court 07/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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. 4,000     58315/21 27/11/2021 Maksim Anatolyevich KOLBIN 1985 Perm   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 22/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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. 4,000   58526/21 09/11/2021 Larisa Igorevna BESH 1962 Kurgan   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Kurgan Regional Court 24/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   58653/21 19/11/2021 Ildar Gumarovich MEYKER 1990 Kazan   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 26/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021 4,000   58692/21 19/11/2021 Konstantin Aleksandrovich LYAYFER 1984 Saratov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Saratov Regional Court 24/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   58846/21 27/11/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich SNURNIKOV 1981 Chelyabinsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   58864/21 27/11/2021 Vitaliy Vasilyevich TYUTIKOV 2002 Kazan   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021. 4,000   58905/21 27/11/2021 Andrey Aleksandrovich MEKHONOSHIN 1985 Perm   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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. 4,000   59002/21 27/11/2021 Yekaterina Glebovna BARYSHKINA 2002 Kazan   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 02/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 5.20 p.m. on 22/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   59054/21 27/11/2021 Andrey Konstantinovich DEDKOV 1996 Volgograd   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Volgograd Regional Court 03/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   59068/21 27/11/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich KOZINSKIY 1988 Orenburg   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Orenburg Regional Court 21/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   59071/21 27/11/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich SHUMOV 1986 Pushkin   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow Regional Court 29/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   59145/21 27/11/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich PORUBOV 1966 Khabarovsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 08/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   59160/21 27/11/2021 Kirill Alekseyevich KUSHIN 2001 Perm   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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. 4,000   59981/21 03/12/2021 Ivan Viktorovich DROBOTOV 1995 Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   60180/21 03/12/2021 Yekaterina Dmitriyevna MAYEVSKYA 1996 Khabarovsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 21/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021. 4,000   60821/21 07/12/2021 Kirill Andreyevich BELOUS 1997 Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.30   p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 6.45 a.m. on 03/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   61719/21 08/12/2021 Vladislav Aleksandrovich SPIVAKOV 2002 Ufa   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 19/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;   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.