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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF YERMOLAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48029/21 and 16 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 Yermolayeva 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 organisers or participants of public assemblies. 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 organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR   2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 13.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and   5   others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§   38-42, 8   October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention; and Korneyeva , cited above, §§   62 ‑ 65 as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence. 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 the above paragraphs, 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 these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under 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 Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence 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]     48029/21 09/09/2021 Yekaterina Valeryevna YERMOLAYEVA 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Stavropol 29/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Stavropol Regional Court 10/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     3,500     56658/21 20/10/2021 Nikolay Aleksandrovich MATVEYEV 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Tambov 21/04/2021     article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO     and   article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days         administrative warning Tambov Regional Court 22/04/2021     Tambov Regional Court 30/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - lack of a prosecuting party at oral court hearings in respect of both sets of proceedings;       Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in the first set of proceedings was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO;     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings. 5,000     56852/21 10/11/2021 Aleksey Leonidovich DAVYDOV 1972 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg 21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Sverdlovsk Regional Court 04/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings     4,000     56853/21 15/11/2021 Pavel Sergeyevich SADOVSKIY 1974 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City 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;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 10.40 a.m. until 7.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 4,000     56856/21 15/11/2021 Maksim Dmitriyevich PANTELEYEV 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 10.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 11 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 5,000     56864/21 10/11/2021 Tatyana Aleksandrovna SHINKARENKO 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Krasnoyarsk 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.20 p.m. until 8.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021     4,000     56879/21 10/11/2021 Andrey Vladimirovich PONOMAREV 1963 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Omsk 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Omsk Regional Court 18/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings;     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3   p.m. until 7.40 p.m. on 23/01/2021 4,000     56900/21 10/11/2021 Nikolay Pavlovich RYABOV   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 for compiling an offence report;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000     57040/21 10/11/2021 Aleksey Igorevich KOPTELOV 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.30 a.m. until 6.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   57043/21 10/11/2021 Sergey Vadimovich ANISIMOV 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 28/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.55 p.m. until 10 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   24857/22 06/08/2021 Maryam Masrurovna SALARZAY 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 5 days Moscow City Court 06/04/2021 Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   24899/22 06/08/2021 Kseniya Yuryevna SERGEYEVA 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 5 days Moscow City Court 04/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11   p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 5 p.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;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   24916/22 06/08/2021 Aleksey Alekseyevich STERLIKOV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days Moscow City Court 09/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.45 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 10 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;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   24999/22 06/08/2021 Vladislav Maksimovich CHISTOBAYEV 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 27/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. to 9.10 p.m. on 23/01/2021 4,000   25015/22 06/08/2021 Yekaterina Sergeyevna CHISTOBAYEVA 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 16/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.59 p.m. until 9.10 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   25023/22 06/08/2021 Nikita Yevgenyevich SHCHERBINA 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for13 days Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 6 p.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;     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.       5,000   25179/22 15/02/2022 Aleksandr Nikolayevich DEMIDENKO 1962 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow In support of political prisoners     Belgorod 21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Belgorod Regional Court 13/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.