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 } .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 } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA5C1E089 { height:71.65pt } .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 GLUSHCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 26942/21 and 14 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 Glushchenko 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. 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; 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 (CAO). 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 the above paragraphs, 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 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 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]     26942/21 27/04/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich GLUSHCHENKO 2001 Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevcich Nizhniy Tagil Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 35 hours of community service Sverdlovsk Regional Court 08/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an 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     46945/21 01/09/2021 Tatyana Aleksandrovna SIZOVA 1998 Tkachenko Nikita Nikolayevich Belgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Belgorod   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 3 days Belgorod Regional Court 01/03/2021   4,000     49190/21 28/09/2021 Fedor Aleksandrovich KAPUSTIN 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 30/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.15 p.m. until 8.09   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     49201/21 28/09/2021 Darya Vladimirovna KLOCHKOVA 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Samara   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Samara Regional Court 06/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.35 p.m. until 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     49532/21 22/09/2021 Nikolay Aleksandrovich ORLOV 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 26/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.55 p.m. on 23/01/2021 until 00.01 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   4,000     49986/21 22/09/2021 Andrey Vladimirovich KAMINSKIY 1972 Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna Novorossiysk Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Anapa   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 22/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an 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     50008/21 27/09/2021 Serafima Vladimirovna MASLOVSKAYA 1990 Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pskov   31/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Pskov Regional Court 05/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an 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     50019/21 27/09/2021 Anton Mikhaylovich NIKOGOSOV 2002 Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pskov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Pskov Regional Court 05/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an 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     50039/21 27/09/2021 Anton Andreyevich SEMENOV 1990 Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pskov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Pskov Regional Court 05/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an 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   50061/21 27/09/2021 Anton Valeryevich BALIN 1981 Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pskov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Pskov Regional Court 05/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an 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   50093/21 24/09/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich LOBOV 1986 Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community service Sverdlovsk Regional Court 01/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000   50164/21 23/09/2021 Daniil Olegovich SINITSIN 2001 Shindyapin Arkadiy Vitalyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 17/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an 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   50270/21 23/09/2021 Aleksandr Andreyevich AVDEYEV 1984 Shindyapin Arkadiy Vitalyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 17/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an 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   53998/21 10/10/2021 Aleksandr Alekseyevich LOBODA 1988 Tkachenko Nikita Nikolayevich Belgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Belgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Belgorod Regional Court 19/04/2021   3,500   54251/21 14/10/2021 Andrey Vadimovich CHERNYSHOV 1995 Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 21/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.30 p.m. until 11 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.