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 } .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 } .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 } .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 IGNATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48943/21 and 16 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 Ignatov 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. 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, 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; 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). 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 paragraph 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 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]     48943/21 24/09/2021 Aleksandr Nikolayevich IGNATOV 1986 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 26/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 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     49568/21 21/09/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich PATYUKOV 1976 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 14/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 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 5,000     49840/21 24/09/2021 Timur Ramilevich AKHMADIYEV 1988 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 29/03/2021 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     50286/21 01/10/2021 Ruslan Vyacheslavovich KOZLOV 1974 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Omsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Omsk Regional Court 06/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 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     50554/21 08/10/2021 Yelena Ravilyevna SHAKIROVA 1974 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 14/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report; detention beyond the three-hour statutory period;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     50555/21 08/10/2021 Eduard Viktorovich VASILIOGLO 1983 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report; detention beyond the three-hour statutory period;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     51220/21 08/10/2021 Vadim Sergeyevich MALYSHEV 1983 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 14/04/2021 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     51715/21 08/10/2021 Artur Damirovich KHAFIZOV 1985 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov 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 19/04/2021 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     51882/21 08/10/2021 Aleksandra Viktorovna KUDRYASHOVA 1990 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Omsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Omsk Regional Court 13/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 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   52927/21 22/10/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich PAKHOMOV 1986 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Bratsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Irkutsk Regional Court 28/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 (a few days after the demonstration) 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   53947/21 19/10/2021 Igor Konstantinovich PASKAR 1976 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 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   53950/21 19/10/2021 Maksim Vladimirovich KAZACHENKO 1997 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 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   53953/21 19/10/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KOLTSOV 1993 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 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   54060/21 14/10/2021 Andrey Petrovich KALENOV 1998 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Moscow City Court 23/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 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   55630/21 19/10/2021 Ivan Sergeyevich TURCHINSKIY 2001 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 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   55635/21 19/10/2021 Tatyana Valeryevna RAGULINA 1999 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 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   57160/21 29/10/2021 Daniil Pavlovich KOPYTOV 2000 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 13 days Moscow City Court 25/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 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. 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.