CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 13 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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; 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 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF TITOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 3551/18 and 14 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Titova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 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 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 the 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 well-established case-law (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10   April 2018, 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.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaint under Article   6 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the proceedings and restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. 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 it is not necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ 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 the 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 13 June 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   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]     3551/18 23/12/2017 Anastasiya Pavlovna TITOVA 1983 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against corruption   Sochi   12/06/2017 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 26/07/2017   3,500     22909/19 10/04/2019 Yekaterina Aleksandrovna VASILYEVA 2000 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Manifestation against the increase of the retirement age   Vladivostok   01/07/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 40 hours’ community work Primorye Regional Court 16/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 28/07/2018 and 09/09/20218 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings)   4,000     49384/21 13/09/2021 Mikhail Vladimirovich BYKOV 1987     Protest rally   Dzerzhinsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 21/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 26/04/2021 (4 days after his participation in the protest rally) - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised in the administrative proceedings,     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     49660/21 16/09/2021 Olga Zhanovna MALISHEVSKAYA 1972 Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna Novorossiysk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Anapa   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 17/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 1.20 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO); the complaints were raised in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     52250/21 01/10/2021 Mikhail Aleksandrovich SUKHOTIN 1957 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 06/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. till 10.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO); the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings           4,000     53236/21 04/10/2021 Aleksandr Ivanovich PAKHARUKOV 2002 Kapustin Vladimir Yakovlevich Yekaterinburg Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours’ community work Sverdlovsk Regional Court 01/06/2021   3,500     57826/21 18/11/2021 Yegor Konstantinovich PAVLOV 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 27/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 4.40 p.m. on 23/01/2021 till 10 p.m. on 25/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art. 29.6(4) CAO); Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled; the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings   4,000     3541/22 15/12/2021 Maksim Alekseyevich RUBAYLOV 1999 Valenkov Andrey Olegovich 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 16/06/2021   3,500     37095/22 13/07/2022 Vladimir Sergeyevich ZALUZHSKIY 1993 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO 9 days’ administrative arrest St   Petersburg City Court 14/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 3.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 12.30 a.m. on 08/03/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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   46210/22 13/09/2022 Anastasiya Aleksandrovna BLAGOVESHCHENSKAYA 1999 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 detention - Arrest and detention from 3.10 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 1.20 p.m. on 07/03/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018); the complaints were raised in the administrative proceeding,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   46220/22 13/09/2022 Yuliya Marsimovna KISELEVA 1996 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Nizhniy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 18/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   46244/22 11/09/2022 Anna Andreyevna KLYUKOVSKAYA 2000 Sabirov Rim Faridovich Kazan Anti-war protest   Kazan   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 11/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 24/02/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised in the administrative proceedings 4,000   46750/22 14/09/2022 Valentin Igorevich SOVKOV 1995 Gerasimova Yekaterina Viktorovna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   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 detention - Arrest and detention on 27/02/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised in the administrative proceedings             4,000   47963/22 14/09/2022 Alena Aleksandrovna KROTOVA 1990 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 detention - Arrest and detention from 3 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 11   a.m. on 08/03/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO); the complaints were raised in the administrative proceedings 4,000   48647/22 01/10/2022 Zakhar Alekseyevich YERYUSHOV 2003 Sabirov Rim Faridovich Kazan Anti-war protest   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 detention - Arrest and detention from 4.05 p.m. to 8.05 p.m. on 27/02/2022 - Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three ‑ hour statutory period (Art.   27.5(1) ‑ (4) CAO); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.