CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 février 2024

.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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ATAMANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 45205/22 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 February 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Atamanova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants in the protest against the Russian military attack on Ukraine, which was held on 27 February 2022 in Moscow. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2   others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17   January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10 .     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 13 .     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 14.     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 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with 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, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under 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 22 February 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location 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]     45205/22 08/09/2022 Anastasiya Aleksandrovna ATAMANOVA 1999     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 23/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.34 p.m. until 11.15 p.m. on 27/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000     54946/22 18/11/2022 Aleksandr Viktorovich TELEGIN 1989 Ushakov Timofey Borisovich Kokoshkino article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.45 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 1.30 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     54948/22 18/11/2022 Nikolay Pavlovich KONOTOPOV 1987 Ushakov Timofey Borisovich Kokoshkino article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 05/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.20 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 1.05 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000     55947/22 07/11/2022 Dmitriy Sergeyevich YEMELIN 1987     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 07/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.15 p.m. until 11.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     56895/22 08/12/2022 Levard Igorevich ANUA 1996 Ushakov Timofey Borisovich Kokoshkino article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 17/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 1.40 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000     56896/22 08/12/2022 Anastasiya Sergeyevna ISAKOVA 1996 Ushakov Timofey Borisovich Kokoshkino article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 17/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.10 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 12.05 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000     57263/22 06/11/2022 Semen KUZMIN 1996 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 11,000 Moscow City Court 07/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.15 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 2.30 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000     57336/22 19/11/2022 Olga Sergeyevna KORSHAKOVA 1979 Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 19/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 2 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     57720/22 08/12/2022 Nikita Gennadyevich VOROBYEV 1988 Ushakov Timofey Borisovich Kokoshkino article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 17/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.40 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 2.05 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.       4,000   57727/22 08/12/2022 Grigoriy Viktorovich PASHUKHIN 1981 Ushakov Timofey Borisovich Kokoshkino article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 15/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.25 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 1.35 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   849/23 15/12/2022 Irina Yuryevna VASILYEVA 1963     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 17/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 3.15 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000   1062/23 20/12/2022 Anastasiya Konstantinovna NEKLYUDOVA 1995 Simonov Maksim Vitalyevich Voskresenskiy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 29/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 2 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   1522/23 21/12/2022 Marina Yuryevna KONSHINA 1980 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 25/07/2022   (Neither the applicant, nor her lawyer were present at the hearing on 25/07/2022. The administrative case file was returned to the first-instance court (the Dorogomilovskiy District Court in Moscow) and was available in its registry on unknown date. The applicant alleges that the appeal decision was never sent to her, that she tried to obtain its copy on 29/09/2022 (she submits a copy of her request lodged online to the Moscow City Court) and that she eventually obtained the copy of the appeal decision on 10/11/2022, when it was dispatched to her by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court in Moscow). Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.25   p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 3.30 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   1830/23 05/12/2022 Stella Shokur NAZARI 1997 Simonov Maksim Vitalyevich Voskresenskiy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 09/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 2 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   1837/23 05/12/2022 Yekaterina Sergeyevna MEDVEDEVA 1990 Simonov Maksim Vitalyevich Voskresenskiy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 09/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 2 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   2030/23 06/12/2022 Yelizaveta Anatolyevna VOLOVATOVA 1995     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 15/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 12.10 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   2076/23 03/12/2022 Andrey Petrovich KONOPLEV 1981 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 09/08/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   2362/23 05/12/2022 Yekaterina Aleksandrovna GULYNINA 1998     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 05/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.35 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 1.20 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   3659/23 19/12/2022 Valeriya Igorevna OLEYNIKOVA 2000     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 23/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6.40 p.m. until 11.50 p.m. on 27/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   3822/23 29/12/2022 Aleksey Vitalyevich SHEVCHENKO 1989     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 05/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 12.10 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   3832/23 20/12/2022 Yelizaveta Dmitriyevna KARPOVA 1994 Simonov Maksim Vitalyevich Voskresenskiy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 23/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 2 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000   4681/23 12/01/2023 Anna YATSENKO 2002     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 13/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.50 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 12.30 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   4915/23 12/12/2022 Roman YATSENKO 1975     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 13/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.50 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 12.30 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   4981/23 08/01/2023 Kirill Andreyevich BELEYEVSKIY 1999     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 13/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.19 p.m. to 11.15 p.m. on 27/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   6735/23 09/01/2022 Mariya Nikolayevna ORLOVA 1992     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 09/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.18 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 6.38 a.m. on 28/02/2022,   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.