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 } .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 KUZNETSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 31856/21 and 10 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 Kuznetsov 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. 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 Protocol 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 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 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]     31856/21 16/06/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich KUZNETSOV 1985 Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 3 p.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;     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     40306/21 30/07/2021 Daniil Vladimirovich NIYAKIY 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 5 days Moscow City Court 04/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention in the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 11.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 4 p.m. on 04/02/2021;   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     40325/21 30/07/2021 Kamil Rashidovich SULTANOV 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days Moscow City Court 08/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and an overnight detention in the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 1.40 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until court hearing at 4 p.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;   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     40342/21 30/07/2021 Anatoliy Andreyevich MALTSEV 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 9 days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention in the police station from 3.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 10.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole purpose of 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;   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     47029/21 15/09/2021 Aleksey Valeryevich SHELEVOY 1976 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 24/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021 5,000     57697/21 07/11/2021 Khochiakbar Numonchonovich SHARIPOV 1998 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Rally in support of Izzat Amon   Moscow   02/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 02/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000     7318/22 27/01/2022 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich TKACHEV 1976 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Opposition rally   Barnaul   20/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Altay Regional Court 11/08/2021   3,500     8000/22 29/01/2022 Sofya Yevgenyevna BUTSYKINA 2003 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Velikiy Novgorod   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Novgorod Regional Court 12/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station at 8.20 p.m. on 21/04/2021; the offence report was compiled only on 23/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings       4,000     17907/22 25/03/2022 Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich VELICHKO 1996 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Voronezh Regional Court 02/12/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.35 p.m. until 11.50 p.m. on 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   37745/22 15/07/2022 Roman Mikhaylovich ASHCHENKO 1981 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   13/03/2022 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 18/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station on 13/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours till the court hearing on 14/03/2022;   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   49211/22 24/09/2022 Sergey Vladimirovich KHOROSHEV 1996     Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   02/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 St Petersburg City Court 24/05/2022 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.