CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 16 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 } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; 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 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ORESHNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 13744/19 and 19 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 May 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Oreshnikova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 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.     Almost all 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 (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 paragraphs   10 ‑ 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 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 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 16 May 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   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]     13744/19 17/02/2019     and         6208/22 13/01/2022 Oksana Petrovna ORESHNIKOVA 1996 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Opposition manifestation   Krasnoyarsk   05/05/2018       Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnoyarsk   21/04/2021               Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000               fine of   RUB 15,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 18/10/2018             Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 15/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – a) arrest and detention on 05/05/2018 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; b) escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.40 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 2.00 a.m. on 22/04/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings 4,000         31909/19 28/05/2019             and       13223/22 18/02/2022 Igor Nikolayevich ADYASOV 1970 Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Novgorod               Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna Nizhniy Novgorod   Manifestation against the pension reform   Nizhny Novgorod   09/09/2018       Rally “Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO                     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   70 hours of community work                   fine of RUB 10,000   Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 29/11/2018                 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 18/08/2021   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings;     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case; the applicant spent 3h40 in the police van 4,000       45970/21 24/08/2021 Vladislav Sergeyevich POLISHCHUK 2002 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 30/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 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     45975/21 24/08/2021 Yefim Dmitriyevich STULOV 2001 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 30/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 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     45979/21 24/08/2021 Natalya Alekseyevna SHEVCHENKO 1996 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 8 days Moscow City Court 08/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 02/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     45984/21 24/08/2021 Konstantin Valeryevich PLATOV 1975 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 12 days Moscow City Court 26/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 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 5,000     46159/21 26/08/2021 Vyacheslav Vladimirovich NIZOVTSEV 1989 Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Tagil Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Yekaterinburg   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 04/08/2021   3,500     46170/21 04/09/2021 Oleg Viktorovich PSHENICHNYY 1964 Savelyeva Alena Alekseyevna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 04/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 2.00 p.m. on 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case; the applicant spent 3 hours in the police van,   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     46179/21 26/08/2021 Maksim Stanislavovich LYSIKOV 1989 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 30/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 23/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   46185/21 26/08/2021 Vladislav Mikhaylovich VARGA 1994 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 30/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 02/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   59547/21 19/11/2021 Yegor Aleksandrovich VNUKOV 2000 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnoyarsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 20/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.20 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021, while the said record was drawn up only on 12/02/2021; the applicant spent 2 hours in the police van,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   389/22 03/12/2021 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich ROGOZHKIN 2000 Kartashov Konstantin Borisovich Penza Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Penza   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO 30 hours of community work Penza Regional Court 03/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 9.50 a.m. to 8.40 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   506/22 09/12/2021 Dmitriy Igorevich ZHUROV 1991     Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Magadan   21/04/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO 40 hours of community work Magadan Regional Court 11/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 7.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 8.00 p.m. on 22/04/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   3043/22 21/12/2021 Dmitriy Alekseyevich ZAIGRALOV 1997 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 11.50 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 8.00 p.m. on 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   3158/22 16/12/2021 Daniil Yevgenyevich SHURYGIN 1999 Koshcheyev Konstantin Yuryevich Petrozavodsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Petrozavodsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic 17/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 23/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   3345/22 14/12/2021 Aleksandr Igorevich BAZHUKOV 1994 Shimovolos Sergey Mikhaylovich 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 24/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.40 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021; the applicant spent more than 4   hours in the police van,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   3361/22 17/12/2021 Roman Agitovich USOYAN 1999     Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 St   Petersburg City Court, 11/05/2021, the applicant was absent and not represented on appeal, he received a copy of the decision on 17/06/2021   3,500   9260/22 20/12/2021 Aleksey Sergeyevich KOROLEV 1982 Moiseyenko Vladimir Anatolyevich Kaliningrad Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kaliningrad   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of   RUB 10,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 21/09/2021   3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.