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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .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 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF USKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 58703/21 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 Uskov 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, and Pivkina and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.   2134/23 and 6 others, § 46, 6 June 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, 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); 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 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 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]     58703/21 19/11/2021 Anton Vyacheslavovich USKOV 1977 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tambov   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Tambov Regional Court 19/05/2021 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     58747/21 11/11/2021 Daniil Dmitriyevich MELNIK 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   19,000 Moscow City Court 11/05/2021   3,500     58762/21 10/11/2021 Yevgeniy Alekseyevich BORISOV 2004 Borisov Oleg Vyacheslavovich Ulyanovsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Ulyanovsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Ulyanovsk Regional Court 03/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 6.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 4,000     59029/21 11/11/2021 Sergey Anatolyevich STARODUBTSEV 1984 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 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 3.30 p.m. to 7.05 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     59554/21 19/11/2021 Fedor Mikhaylovich YELISEYEV 2001 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 a.m. to 9.00 p. m. on 02/02/2021; the applicant spent 2h30min 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     61203/21 25/11/2021 Ivan Viktorovich MEKHANOSHIN 1997 Trutnev Matvey Sergeyevich Perm Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Perm   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community works Perm Regional Court 11/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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     450/22 02/12/2021 Gennadiy Dmitriyevich SITENKO 1953 Sannikova Yelena Nikitichna Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 03/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 12.10   a.m. on 31/01/2021 to 00.45 a.m. on 01/02/2021; the applicant spent 3h30 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     866/22 15/12/2021 Ilya Konstantinovich YERMAKOV 2002 Filatchev Oleg Vladimirovich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kaluga   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Kaluga Regional Court 16/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 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     1805/22 09/12/2021 Mikhail Andreyevich LITOMIN 1990 Balog Natalya Andreyevna Krasnoyarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnoyarsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 10/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 4.15 p.m. to 8.35 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   4,000   44513/22 22/08/2022 Margarita Igorevna LEVASHOVA 1996 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Nizhniy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 18/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty -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 2.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 5.00 p.m. on 07/03/2022, 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   46152/22 08/09/2022 Natalya Igorevna NEVAR 1991 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Nizhniy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 3 days Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 18/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 3.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 5.00 p.m. on 07/03/2022, 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   5,000   46155/22 15/09/2022 Aygul Ayratovna GADELSHINA 2003 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   Ufa   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   18,000 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 16/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 27/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   46199/22 13/09/2022 Sergey Aleksandrovich AREFYEV 1989 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Nizhniy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 18/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty 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 3.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 6.30 p.m. on 07/03/2022, 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   4,000   46752/22 14/09/2022 Yekaterina Pavlovna BEZHENAR 1996 Gerasimova Yekaterina Viktorovna St Petersburg Anti-war rally   St   Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 31/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 6.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 9.00 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     4,000   46754/22 14/09/2022 Yelizaveta Vasilyevna SPIRIDONOVA 2000 Gerasimova Yekaterina Viktorovna St Petersburg Anti-war rally   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 31/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 7.15 p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 8.00 a.m. on 28/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   48290/22 17/09/2022 Mikhail Gennadyevich STUPKO 1987 Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich Samara Anti-war protest   Samara   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 19/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 27/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   48306/22 15/09/2022 Yekaterina Andreyevna TKACHENKO 1995 Podolskiy Sergey Viktorovich St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   02/04/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 St Petersburg City Court 31/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 2.15 p.m. on 02/04/2022 to 03/04/2022, 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   48502/22 30/09/2022 Anastasiya Konstantinovna GORODNITSINA 2002 Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich Samara Anti-war rally   Samara   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 02/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - 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 3.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 27/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   48535/22 01/10/2022 Sergey Sergeyevich TYURIN 1987 Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich Samara Anti-war rally   Samara   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Samara Regional Court 02/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 2.25   p.m. to an unspecified time, at least 3.25 p.m., on 06/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   50599/22 27/09/2022 Marina Sergeyevna VOLNUSHKINA 1963 Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war rally   Nizhniy Novgorod   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 01/06/2022   3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.