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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s4EFA53D { 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; 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 } .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 PALKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 35267/22 and 9 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 Palkina 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 and its Protocol. 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 (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 paragraph 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 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]     35267/22 02/07/2022 Darya Aleksandrovna PALKINA 1990 Zyryanova Mariya Sergeyevna St Petersburg Protest against war in Ukraine   St   Petersburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2   §   6.1 of CAO Detention for 10   days St   Petersburg City Court 03/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.05 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 5.54 p.m. 25/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings.   5,000     39708/22 05/08/2022 Aleksey Yevgenyevich POPOV 1989 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Protest against war in Ukraine   Tyumen   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 19,000 Tyumen Regional Court 27/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.00 p.m. until 7.00 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     39711/22 31/07/2022 Dmitriy Sergeyevich TROPSKIY 1977 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Protest against war in Ukraine   Sochi   04/03/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO Detention for 5 days Krasnodar Regional Court 13/04/2022 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     40489/22 10/08/2022 Arina Yevgenyevna SINER 1996 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Protest against war in Ukraine   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2   §   6.1 of CAO Detention for 10 days St Petersburg City Court 14/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until the hearing in the first-instance court 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,   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     41069/22 14/08/2022 Tatyana Sergeyevna VORONTSOVA 1986 Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Protest against war in Ukraine   St Petersburg   03/03/2022 article 20.2   §   6.1 of CAO Detention for 10 days St Petersburg City Court 14/04/2022 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 - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.10 p.m. on 03/03/2022 until the hearing in the first-instance court on 04/03/2022.   5,000     41687/22 09/08/2022 Aleksandr Yuryevich GUSAKOV 1978 Magomedova Luiza Magomedovna St Petersburg Protest against war in Ukraine   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2   §   6.1 of CAO Detention for 10 days St Petersburg City Court 11/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 4.30 p.m. on 07/03/2022 as well as escorting to the first-instance court hearing on 11/04/2022,     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     42515/22 18/08/2022 Andrey Andreyevich MELCHAKOV 1996 Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod Protest against war in Ukraine   Nizhniy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2   §   6.1 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 21/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.10 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 4.30 p.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     42853/22 16/08/2022 Ivan Ilyich PUKHMAREV 1993 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Protest against war in Ukraine   Nizhniy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 27/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.10 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until the hearing in the first-instance court 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     42865/22 16/08/2022 Anastasiya Andreyevna YAROSH 1999 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Protest against war in Ukraine   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 - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until the hearing in the first-instance court 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   43173/22 22/08/2022 Artem Igorevich SERGEYEV 1993 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Protest against war in Ukraine   Nizhniy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2   §   6.1 of CAO Fine of RUB 15,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 27/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.15 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until the hearing in the first-instance court 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   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.