CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 25 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 } .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 } .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 } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF POTAPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 1469/19 and 13 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 25 April 2024     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Potapov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 April 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 and Protocols thereto. 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; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; 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 the Convention and its Protocols. 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 finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints; Holds that these complaints 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 25 April 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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]     1469/19 14/12/2018 Igor Mikhaylovich POTAPOV 1951 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Opposition rally   Cheboksary 05/05/2018     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           community work of 20 hours Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 24/07/2018     Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 24/07/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     1480/19 14/12/2018 Valeryan Valeryevich VIKTOROV 1971 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Opposition rally   Cheboksary 05/05/2018       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community work of 20 hours         fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 24/07/2018     Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 24/07/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     23372/19 09/04/2019 Aleksandr Vladimirovich KHMELEV 1996 Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg LGBT rights event   St Petersburg 04/08/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   170,000 St Petersburg City Court 09/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (i) arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 04/08/2018 for compiling an offence report, and (ii) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report for more than 18 hours between 06/08/2018 and 07/08/2018, as administrative suspect, pending trial,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 6,000     23949/21 17/04/2021 Aleksey Olegovich ZAKOLYUKIN 1996 Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Tagil Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 30 hours Sverdlovsk Regional Court 25/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report 4,000     30224/21 15/05/2021 Ivan Sergeyevich RUDAKOV 1989 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Rally against Constitutional Amendments   Moscow 15/07/2020 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 15/07/2020 and 16/07/2020 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     33163/21 15/06/2021 Sergey Vasilyevich PETROV 1961 Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich Khabarovsk Rally in support of S.   Furgal   Khabarovsk 17/09/2020 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 5 days Khabarovsk Regional Court 17/12/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention between 24/09/2020 and 25/09/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled,   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     37880/21 12/07/2021 Anna Sergeyevna PUSHKINA 1990 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow 31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 26/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative 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     59192/21 01/11/2021 Anastasiya Vladimirovna VISHNEVSKAYA 1998 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 5 days Moscow City Court 07/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station between 02/02/2021 and 03/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after an offence report 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,   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     4459/22 18/01/2022 Yelena Anatolyevna SHUVALOVA 1956     Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow 23/01/2021       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 23/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,     3,500   7498/22 31/01/2022 Petr Valeryevich OVCHINNIKOV 1967 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Perm 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 15/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report 4,000   28397/22 25/05/2022 Sergey Valeryevich BARTENEV 1998 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow 31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 25/01/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, after the offence report 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 4,000   36528/22 04/07/2022 Andrey Yuryevich TEREKHIN 1981 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Anti-war rally   Novosibirsk 24/02/2022     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO         article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   4,000         administrative detention of 8 days Novosibirsk Regional Court 15/06/2022     Novosibirsk Regional Court 04/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as an administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been already compiled,   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-offence proceedings),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction under article 20.2   § 2 of the CAO, sentence of administrative detention of 10 days for making calls, during the public event of 24/02/2022, for participation in another anti-war rally scheduled for 26/02/2022 (final judgment: 01/06/2022, Novosibirsk Regional Court),   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 26/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   38960/22 30/07/2022 Mariya Vladimirovna TSYGANKOVA 1999 Zaytsev Roman Olegovich Volgograd Anti-war rally   Volgograd 06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Volgograd Regional Court 31/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative 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   40270/22 30/07/2022 Yelena Leonidovna SENKOVETS 1965 Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war rally   Nizhniy Novgorod 24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 22/06/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.