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 } .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 } .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 GALKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 32406/21 and 17 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 Galkin 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. 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 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); 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 , and 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 the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences, in order to identify, locate and arrest the applicant. 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 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]     32406/21 09/06/2021 Dmitriy Nikolayevich GALKIN 1987 Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Tagil Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community service Sverdlovsk Regional Court 25/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.05 p.m. until 7.15 p.m. on 31/01/2021   4,000     34085/21 06/06/2021 Sergey Igorevich GULYAYEV 1994 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Vladivostok   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Primorye Regional Court 06/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.40 p.m. until 7 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     36386/21 30/06/2021 Dmitriy Nikolayevich KOSTIKOV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kursk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Kursk Regional Court 29/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention at the police station for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence from 3.15 p.m. till 7.40   p.m. 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 - 29/04/2021, Kursk Regional Court 4,000     38360/21 02/07/2021 Artem Rinatovich MINGAZIROV 1998 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 22/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7   p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 00.30 a.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   4,000     39333/21 22/07/2021 Eldar Kurbanovich ALIYEV 1970 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days Moscow City Court 14/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 11.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 4 p.m. on 03/02/2021;   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     1890/22 21/12/2021 Denis Vladimirovich STEPANOV 1999 Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Sverdlovsk Regional Court 22/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     2686/22 09/12/2021 Aleksandra Anatolyevna NOVIKOVA 1985 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Kamchatka Regional Court 09/06/2021   3,500     3415/22 23/12/2021 Sergey Vitalyevich KUBAK 1999 Filatchev Oleg Vladimirovich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kaluga   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Kaluga Regional Court 25/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.55 p.m. until 11.55 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     3632/22 24/12/2021 Denis Andreyevich POZDIN 1990   Bogdashkin Ilya Igorevich Yekaterinburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 16/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- detention at the police station without compiling an offence report 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   3808/22 22/12/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich POLOVOY 1974 Vladyka Oksana Anatolyevna Arkhangelsk Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Arkhangelsk   21/04/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 16/07/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   3967/22 27/12/2021 Kirill Aleksandrovich KIRSANOV 1972 Olgerdt Oksana Gennadyevna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   03/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 28/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 01.10 a.m. until 11.30 p.m. on 03/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   4259/22 30/12/2021 Pavel Vladimirovich MEDVEDEV 1984 Chashchilova Mariya Valeryevna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 15/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.05 p.m. until 8.20 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   4344/22 30/12/2021 Danila Viktorovich KORABLIN 1981 Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   4592/22 24/12/2021 Yelena Viktorovna LINNIK 1994 Lokhmutov Aleksandr Sergeyevich Moscow Rally "Municipal Russia" organised by Open Russia Civic Movement   Moscow   13/03/2021 article 20.33 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow 29/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 10.30 a.m. until 3 p.m. on 13/03/2021 4,000   5183/22 31/12/2021 Yuliya Yevgenyevna SHEVELEVA 1992 Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevcich Nizhniy Tagil Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 08/12/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   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 her subsequent conviction (raised on appeal) 5,000   34223/22 23/06/2022 Pavel Vyacheslavovich KARULIN 1996 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Velikiy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 20 hours of community service Novgorod Regional Court 01/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until court hearing at 11.40 a.m. on 07/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   39877/22 29/07/2022 Aleksey Alekseyevich FILATOV 1981 Magomedova Luiza Magomedovna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 5 days St Petersburg City Court 26/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 8.40 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 8.34 a.m. on 28/02/2022;   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   50658/22 24/09/2022 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BLAZHIYEVSKIY 1982 Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Nizhniy Novgorod   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 25/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 7.40 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 12.40 p.m. on 26/02/2022;   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.