CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 mars 2024

.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 } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; 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 } .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 } .s3EBD756B { height:58.55pt } .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 }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SKOROKHODOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 16047/21 and 16 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 March 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Skorokhodov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 March 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. 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 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 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 concerning the dispersal of the public assembly; 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 28 March 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   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]     16047/21 05/03/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich SKOROKHODOV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 24/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing 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     16347/21 09/03/2021 Aleksandr Gegamovich MURADYAN 1976 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally against the amendments to the Constitution   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 10/09/2020 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     16588/21 02/03/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich ERSHOV 1978 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Opposition rally   Moscow   22/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 16/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 22/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence (such record drawn up on 15/07/2020),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     16783/21 02/03/2021 Igor Nikolayevich AFANASYEV 1968 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Opposition rally   Moscow   22/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 16/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 22/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence (such record drawn up on 16/07/2020),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     17041/21 10/03/2021 Nikolay Vladimirovich KOMAROV 1987 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally against amendments to the Constitution and COVID-19 restrictions   Samara   21/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Samara Regional Court 10/09/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     17144/21 15/03/2021 Emil Rolanovich YUNUSOV 2000 Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow A stroll in support of Ilya Azar   Moscow   05/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 16/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record in respect of the events of 05/06/2020,     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     17336/21 09/03/2021 Natalya Anatolyevna TRUBINA 1984 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally in support of Khabarovsk protests   Krasnoyarsk   08/08/2020 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 10/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 08/08/2020 and 09/08/2020 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been drawn up 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     19425/21 15/03/2021 Roman Grigiryevich KARTSEV 2002 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 5 days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been drawn up   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000     19516/21 17/03/2021 Valentina Aleksandrovna VAKULENKO 1957 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Rally against authorities   Moscow   22/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 16/12/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 22/06/2020 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence (such record was compiled 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   19635/21 23/03/2021 Yelena Nikolayevna SAMBORSKAYA 1974 Tunikov Mikhail Igorevich Vladivostok Rally in support of S. Furgal   Vladivostok   01/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 05/10/2020   3,500   20145/21 23/03/2021 Yegor Alekseyevich POROKHOVOY 2001 Memorial Human Rights Centre 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 03/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   20384/21 21/03/2021 Ilnur Diazettinovich BAYGAZIN 1994 Mullanurov Aydar Azatovich Ufa Rally for protection of Kushtau mountain   Bashkortostan Republic   15/08/2020 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 600 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 21/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - unlawful detention on 15/08/2020 for more than 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing 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   22175/21 07/04/2021 Nadezhda Ivanovna KUZNETSOVA 1958     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Volgograd   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 10/03/2021   3,500   22251/21 08/04/2021 Talgat Albertovich AKHMADIYEV 1992     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Kazan   23/01/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention between 23/01/2021 and 25/01/2021 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled 4,000   22597/21 02/04/2021 Timur Robertovich SLAYEV 2000 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 03/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 23/01/2021 and 24/01/2021 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled on 23/01/2021; arrest recorded about 10 hours after the actual apprehension,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   23082/21 27/04/2021 Andrey Aleksandrovich ALEKSANDROV 1989 Molokhov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 5 days Moscow City Court 02/03/2021   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to s police station, detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record drawn up on 28/01/2021),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   32555/21 15/06/2021 Daniil Sergeyevich MASALKIN 2002 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Commemorating the anniversary of the October Revolution   Perm   07/11/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 20 hours Perm Regional Court 29/01/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 07/11/2020 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.