CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 mars 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 } .sF057D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:6pt } .sF7147D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:5pt } .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 DANKOVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 13238/21 and 18 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 March 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Dankovskaya 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 15 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. Some applicants also invoked Article   10, however, this complaint falls to be examined under 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 they 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 (the CAO). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised 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 11 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 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 decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants 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 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 14 March 2024, 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   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case ‑ law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     13238/21 01/03/2021 Angela Nikolayevna DANKOVSKAYA 1973 Ushakov Timofey Borisovich Kokoshkino Opposition rally   Moscow   22/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 26/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention- arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 22/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record only drawn up on 06/07/2020);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     15097/21 24/02/2021 Damir Shamilevich DAVLETBAYEV 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally against the Constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 26/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     15104/21 25/02/2021 Grigoriy Aleksandrovich GRIBENKO 1989 Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Opposition rally   Irkutsk   01/08/2020 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20 000 Irkutsk Regional Court 27/10/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     20155/21 23/03/2021 Sergey Alekseyevich PAVLOV 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally against the constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 26/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence 4,000     20303/21 14/03/2021 Ivan Igorevich SHCHEPIN 1990 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally in support of S. Furgal   Krasnoyarsk   08/08/2020 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 24/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 08/08/2020 and 10/08/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been complied on 08/08/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     20406/21 26/03/2021 Larisa Sergeyevna TOLMACHEVA 1962 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Opposition rally   Krasnoyarsk   15/08/2020 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 01/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/08/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence (such record drawn up on 17/08/2020); failure to draw up records of administrative arrest and escorting;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings       4,000     20652/21 20/03/2021 Darya Sergeyevna MERNENKO 2000 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Event against the increase of public transportation tariffs   St-Petersburg   19/11/2019 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Saint Petersburg City Court 06/10/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     20669/21 25/03/2021 Shamil Azatovich ALIAKBEROV 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally against the constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 26/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled only on 20/07/2020);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     20775/21 22/03/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KHALAYEV 1979 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally in support of S. Furgal   Vladivostok   19/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Primorye Regional Court 13/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 19/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings         4,000   20778/21 22/03/2021 Anastasiya Yuryevna KAPITONOVA 1998 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally in support of S. Furgal   Vladivostok   08/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 03/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   21351/21 06/04/2021 Andrey Eduardovich MAKSIMKIN 1993 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Saransk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic 10/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   21567/21 08/04/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich LITVINENKO 1962 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 20/01/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/08/2019, for the purpose of drawing up an offence record (such record only drawn up on 06/08/2019) 4,000   21988/21 07/04/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich SEMCHENKOV 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of arrested N. Platoshkin and S. Furgal   Moscow   25/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 18/01/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention on 25/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   22672/21 29/03/2021 Bilyal Pavlovich KOTKIN 1981 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 4,000   24176/21 16/04/2021 Mikhail Sergeyevich REVYAKIN 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of S. Furgal   Khabarovsk   19/12/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 28/01/2021   3,500   24727/21 29/03/2021 Ilya Sergeyevich FROLOV 1992 Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Volgograd   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 25/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   25898/21 07/05/2021 Anton Yuryevich ZHIVIN 1990 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   25930/21 07/05/2021 Denis Vladimirovich TKHAROVSKIY 1987 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 15 days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   39838/21 29/07/2021 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich YANIN 1989 Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest; escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.