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 } .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 } .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 } .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 }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SLIVIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 24722/18 and 10 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 Slivin 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 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; 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); and Elvira Dmitriyeva v.   Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§   77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events. 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 paragraph 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 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 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 / 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]     24722/18 14/05/2018 Igor Yevgenyevich SLIVIN 1990     Distribution of leaflets in support of A.   Navalnyy   Tambov   02/08/2017   Distribution of leaflets in support of A.   Navalnyy   Tambov   16/09/2017 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 20 days             fine of RUB   300,000 Tambov Regional Court 14/11/2017           Tambov Regional Court 22/11/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report (i) on 05/10/2017, (ii) on 02/11/2017, and (iii) on 07/09/2018,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - three sets of administrative proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 29/10/2017 in Tambov, Article 20.2   §   8 of CAO, detention for 25 days, final decision by the Tambov Regional Court on 10/09/2018. 5,000     40138/18 14/08/2018 Leonid Vladimirovich SANKIN 1963 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of presidential candidacy of A.   Navalnyy   Teatralnaya square, Rostov-on-Don   24/12/2017 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   75,000 Rostov Regional Court 20/02/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     46388/18 21/09/2018 Valeriya Ibragimovna DZBOYEVA 1998 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of presidential candidacy of A.   Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don   24/12/2017 Article 20.2 § 6-1 of CAO fine of RUB   7,500 Rostov Regional Court 22/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     50049/18 10/10/2018 Pavel Yuryevich SMIRNOV 1991 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation against Putin’s re-election as the President   Voronezh   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 14/06/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     8678/19 21/01/2019 Ivan Andreyevich TUMANOV 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Pokrov   05/04/2021   Opposition rally against Putin’s re-election   Vladimir   05/05/2018 article 20.2.2 § 3 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO detention for 11 days           fine of RUB   5,000 Vladimir Regional Court 29/04/2021         Vladimir Regional Court 11/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 19/04/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of administrative proceedings. 5,000     40190/21 21/07/2021 Ivan Aleksandrovich KHUDYAKOV 1989 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Chelyabinsk   23/01/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 30 days Chelyabinsk Regional Court 26/01/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.05   p.m. on 23/01/2021 until 1.00 p.m. on 24/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   5,000     41534/21 03/08/2021 Andrey Leonidovich FATEYEV 1988 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tomsk   23/01/2021   Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tomsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO           article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   25,000           fine of RUB   20,000 Tomsk Regional Court 12/02/2021         Tomsk Regional Court 12/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - three sets administrative proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Tomsk, Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, detention for 30 days, final decision by the Tomsk Regional Court on 04/05/2021 5,000     43776/21 26/08/2021 Denis Freddiyevich KADENA 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 26/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.22   p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 7.04 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     51184/21 08/10/2021 Konstantin Mikhaylovich YUDIN 1995 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021   Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000           fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 17/11/2021         Moscow City Court 14/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record (i) between 1.45 p.m. and 11.50   p.m. on 23/01/2021; and (ii) between 7.46   p.m. and 11.44 p.m. 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 - both sets of administrative proceedings. 4,000   58077/21 09/11/2021 Yuliya Borisovna SMIRNOVA 1990 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 27/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record: (i) between 12.25 p.m. and 7.28   p.m. on 31/01/2021; (ii) between 5:42   p.m. on 24/02/2022 and 2:30 p.m. on 25/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of administrative proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Nizhniy Novgorod, 24/02/2022, anti-war solo demonstration, fine of RUB   80,000, final decision by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 13/04/2022.         5,000   34101/22 01/07/2022 Kirill Aleksandrovich SUKHORUKOV 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anti-war protest   Kaliningrad   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 10 days Kaliningrad Regional Court 05/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report: (i) from 7.00 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 4.15 p.m. on 25/02/2022; and (ii) from 3.40 p.m. on 08/03/2022 until 3.40 p.m. on 09/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of administrative proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - picket against war in Ukraine held on 08/03/2022, conviction under article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB   30,000, final decision on 31/05/2022 by the Kaliningrad Regional Court. 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.