CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juin 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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; 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 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF FAYZRAKHMANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48403/18 and 10 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fayzrakhmanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 May 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They also raised other complaint under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. 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 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8.     The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of   Karelin v. Russia   (no.   926/08, 20   September 2016). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirements allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence case, which falls within the ambit of Article   6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority were incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article   6 of the Convention. 9.     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 on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 10 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     The 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. 12 .     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies, 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 13.     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 and 12 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers 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 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 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 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under   well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     48403/18 05/10/2018 Mikhail Sergeyevich FAYZRAKHMANOV 1995 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius fine of RUB   10,000 07/05/2018, Zabaykalye Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls on the internet (Vkontakte social network) to participate in "Strike of electors" (2018 Presidential elections), conviction under article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO to an administrative fine of RUB 10,000; final decision: Zabaykalye Regional Court, 07/05/2018.   4,000     23626/21 17/04/2021 Tatyana Viktorovna PUSHKINA 1992 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg fine of RUB   20,000 29/10/2020, Novosibirsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls on the internet (Telegram messenger) to participate in solo picketing in support of the Khabarovsk Region Governor, Mr S. Furgal; conviction under article   20.2   § 2 of the CAO to an administrative fine of RUB   20,000; final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 29/10/2020.   4,000     40304/21 30/07/2021 Sofya Sergeyevna LOPATINA 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius administrative detention for 8   days,       administrative detention for 10   days,       administrative detention for 30 days 03/02/2021, Kurgan Regional Court (under art. 20.2 § 2)   06/05/2021, Kurgan Regional Court (under art. 19.3 § 1)   06/05/2021, Kurgan Regional Court (under art. 20.2 § 8) Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls on the internet (Vkontakte social network) to participate in a rally in support of Mr   A.   Navalnyy, on 23/01/2021; conviction under art.   20.2   §   2 of the CAO to 8 days of administrative detention; final decision: Kurgan Regional Court, 03/02/2021. 5,000     41578/21 03/08/2021 Kseniya Vladislavovna FADEYEVA 1992 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius fine of RUB   25,000 12/02/2021, Tomsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls on the internet (Vkontakte social network) to participate in an unauthorised rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021; conviction under article   20.2   § 2 of the CAO to an administrative fine of RUB   25,000; final decision: Tomsk Regional Court, 12/02/2021.   4,000     42544/21 27/07/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich SERGEYEV 1988 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk administrative detention of 7   days 28/01/2021, Ulyanovsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - repost of a call for participation in a rally in Ulyanovsk in support of Mr A. Navalnyy, on the internet (Vkontakte social network); conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO to administrative detention of 7 days; final decision: Ulyanovsk Regional Court, 28/01/2021,   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.   4,000     42738/21 12/08/2021 Kirill Viktorovich UKRAINTSEV 1990 Polyakova Veronika Valeryevna Moscow administrative detention of 5   days 12/02/2021, Moscow City Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - repost of a call on the internet (Vkontakte social network) for participation in a demonstration near a district court in Moscow on 11/01/2021; conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO to administrative detention of 5   days; final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021.   4,000     43689/21 17/08/2021 Anastasiya Viktorovna GLEBOVA 1994 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius fine of RUB   25,000 11/03/2021, Vologda Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls (distribution of leaflets) to participate in manifestation in support of Mr A. Navalnyy in Cherepovets on 23/01/2021; conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO to administrative fine of RUB 25,000; final decision: Vologda Regional Court, 11/03/2021.     4,000     54892/21 12/10/2021 Sergey Dmitriyevich BELIKOV 1987 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou fine of RUB   10,000 14/04/2021, Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls on the internet (Vkontakte social network) to participate in an unauthorised rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021; conviction under article   20.2   § 2 of the CAO to an administrative fine of RUB   10,000; final decision: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 14/04/2021.   4,000     6129/22 06/01/2022 Vladimir Mikhaylovich KOTOV 1990 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou fine of RUB   20,000 08/07/2021, Arkhangelsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls on the internet (Vkontakte social network) to participate in an unauthorised rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021; conviction under article   20.2   §   2 of the CAO to an administrative fine of RUB   20,000; final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 08/07/2021.   4,000   14411/22 10/03/2022 Denis Igorevich SHENDEROVICH 1977 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul fine of RUB   25,000 27/10/2021, Moscow City Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls on the internet (Instagram social network) to participate in an unauthorised rally in support of Mr   A.   Navalnyy on 23/01/2021; conviction under article   20.2   § 2 of the CAO to an administrative fine of RUB   25,000; final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/10/2021.   4,000   25798/22 11/05/2022 Anna Stanislavovna DULEVSKAYA 1991 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg fine of RUB 20,000 15/11/2021, Moscow City Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls on the internet (Facebook) to participate in an unauthorised rally on 21/04/2021 in support of Mr   A.   Navalnyy; conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO to an administrative fine of RUB 20,000; final decision: Moscow City Court, 15/11/2021.   4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.