CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 mai 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 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF AGABEKYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 22474/21 and 17 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 May 2024     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Agabekyan 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 11 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 its Protocol. 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 Protocol, 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 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); 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; Glukhin v. Russia , no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in administrative offence proceedings in order to identify, locate and arrest him; 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 the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 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 Protocol 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 14 May 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]     22474/21 05/04/2021 Narek Gagikovich AGABEKYAN 1995 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tomsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Tomsk Regional Court 11/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Tomsk Regional Court, 11/03/2021 3,500     22582/21 02/04/2021 Pavel Dmitriyevich BAGDALOV 1998 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tomsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Tomsk Regional Court 05/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Detention from 1   p.m. to 2 p.m. on 31/01/2021 for drawing up an administrative offence record; 3 hours later the applicant was brought to the police station, where he was detained from 6   p.m. to 11.30 p.m. waiting for a court hearing, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Tomsk Regional Court, 05/03/2021 4,000     45286/21 23/08/2021 Olga Vadimovna VASILYEVA 1950 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Pyatigorsk 31/01/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO detention for 1 day Stavropol Regional Court 24/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 2 p.m. on 01/02/2021 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 24/03/2021 5,000     46104/21 10/09/2021 Nikita Aleksandrovich BAZHIN 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 22/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 22/03/2021 4,000     46129/21 31/08/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich STARIKOV 1998 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 10   days Moscow City Court 04/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 5.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 11.30 a.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/03/2021,   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     1276/22 24/12/2021 Roman Sergeyevich PROKHOROV 1993 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Rally “Freedom to the political prisoners”   Moscow   04/11/2020     article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 27/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.10 p.m. to 8.45 p.m. on 04/11/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/09/2021 4,000     3042/22 14/12/2021 Fedor Anatolyevich KOMAROV 1999 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/06/2021 4,000     11599/22 17/02/2022 Olga Anatolyevna NAZARENKO 1975 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Ivanovo   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 100 hours of community work Ivanovo Regional Court 18/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.05 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 1.10 a.m. on 22/04/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Ivanovo Regional Court, 18/08/2021 5,000     12079/22 09/02/2022 Vitaliy Dmitriyevich PETRUKHIN 1989 Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich Sochi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnodar   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 09/12/2021   3,500   13220/22 18/02/2022 Tatyana Vasilyevna KUDRYASHOVA 1992 Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna Nizhniy Novgorod Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Nizhniy Novgorod   23/01/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 18/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 18/08/2021 4,000   24067/22 09/02/2022 Andrey Pavlovich PETRUKHIN 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 17/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Detention at the police station on 30/04/2021 for 5 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 17/08/2021,   Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - Use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and his subsequent conviction (raised on appeal) 5,000   24713/22 06/08/2021 Andrey Viktorovich KOROVYANSKIY 1988 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 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 1.40 p.m. on 01/02/2021 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/02/2021,   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   31689/22 13/06/2022 Yekaterina Aleksandrovna SHAKUN 1996 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Anti-war protest   Rostov-on-Don   06/03/2022 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 15   days Rostov Regional Court 19/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 6 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 11 a.m. on 07/03/2022 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 19/03/2022,   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   33769/22 22/06/2022 Roman Igorevich ZHUKOV 1985 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Anti-war protest   Ufa   06/03/2022 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 24   hours Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 11/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.10 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 2 p.m. on 07/03/2022 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, 11/04/2022 5,000   40255/22 30/07/2022 Marat Kadirovich KHUSAINOV 1978 Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Nizhniy Novgorod   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 13/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.40 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 7.20 p.m. on 25/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 13/05/2022   4,000   41557/22 12/08/2022 Valentina Aleksandrovna SAFONOVA 1994 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St   Petersburg   25/02/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St   Petersburg City Court 12/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 9.30 p.m. on 25/02/2022 to 3.45 p.m. on 26/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg Regional Court, 12/04/2022 4,000   47578/22 06/09/2022 Larisa Timofeyevna SHVYNDINA 1959     Anti-war protest   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 15/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.30 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 1.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 15/06/2022 4,000   52091/22 07/10/2022 Mikhail NAYDEN 1982 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 09/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.11 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 1 a.m. on 07/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/06/2022 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.