CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 avril 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 } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; 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 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF KINZHABAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 35579/21 and 19 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 April 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kinzhabayeva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 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. 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.     The 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); and 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. 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 ‑ 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 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 11 April 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   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]     35579/21 28/06/2021 Yuliya Nikolayevna KINZHABAYEVA 1997 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Chelyabinsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 28/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   3,500     37925/21 16/07/2021 Andrey Gennadyevich SUKHANOV 1984 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy   Volgograd   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021 4,000     38631/21 19/07/2021 Ilya Borisovich PAKHOMOV 1993 Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy   Moscow   17/01/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 18/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: - from 7.35 p.m. to 10.20 p.m. on 17/01/2021, while a record of administrative offence was drawn on 22/02/2021; - from 11.30 p.m. on 27/01/2021 to 9.30 a.m. 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     40544/21 30/07/2021 Angelina Sergeyevna LEVINA 1992 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy   Tambov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 15 days Tambov Regional Court 05/02/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     40585/21 27/07/2021 Marina Petrovna LIMAR 1987 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally “Free Navalnyy   Moscow, Komsomolskaya Square   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 24/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 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   4,000     40677/21 25/07/2021 Galina Yevgenyevna MANENKOVA 1971 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Rally “Free Navalnyy   Smolensk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Smolensk Regional Court 10/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – detained and escorted to a court on 29/01/2021. After the applicant had voluntary come to the police station, she was escorted to the first-instance hearing in her administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000     40941/21 28/07/2021 Ulyana Dmitriyevna KOLUSENKO 1993 Sotnikov Dmitriy Valeryevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 11/02/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   5,000     41461/21 05/08/2021 Anastasiya Igorevna KRIVENKO 1999 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy   Tambov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 7   days Tambov Regional Court 17/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 1.50 p.m. on 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   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     42216/21 09/08/2021 Timur Shakhinovich BABAYEV 1996     Rally “Free Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 09/02/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   5,000   42291/21 07/08/2021 Elina Aleksandrovna PULUDI 1963     Rally “Free Navalnyy"   Kazan   31/01/2021       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case; the applicant spent 7 hours in the police van 4,000   43002/21 23/08/2021 Yaroslav Igorevich TIKHONOV 1988 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy"   Yaroslavl   23/01/2021   Rally “Free Navalnyy   Yaroslavl   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           fine of RUB   10,000 Yaroslavl Regional Court 14/05/2021         Yaroslavl Regional Court 11/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 4,000   43449/21 23/08/2021 Tatyana Yuryevna SHISHKINA 1966 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 02/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021 in the morning,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   43462/21 23/08/2021 Dmitriy Segeyevich BATALIN 1995 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Yaroslavl   23/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Yaroslavl Regional Court 15/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021   4,000   43771/21 23/08/2021 Roman Ramilevich NAZIROV 1995 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tula   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Tula Regional Court 02/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   43773/21 23/08/2021 Mikhail Aleksandrovich KREYNES 1987 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 1.00 a.m. on 01/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   43915/21 23/08/2021 Rasul Ayratovich MULLATAGIROV 1994 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Ufa   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 05/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.50 p.m. to 3.50 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   4,000   48347/21 25/07/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BYKOV 1990 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 8   days Moscow City Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   5,000   49717/21 17/09/2021 Dmitriy Gennadyevich CHESNOKOV 1998 Kosnyrev Vladislav Vladimirovich Syktyvkar Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Syktyvkar   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 17/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.40 p.m. to 7.40 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 4,000   50261/21 24/09/2021 Viktor Andreyevich SPERANSKIY 1991 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 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   51223/21 08/10/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich VELIKIY 1991 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kazan   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 14/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.