CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 27 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 } .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 } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; 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 } .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 }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SOKOLOVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 14129/20 and 7 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 June 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Sokolovskaya and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 June 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 applicants were represented by Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich, a lawyer practising in Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou. 3.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 7.     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 8.     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. 9.     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). 10.     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. 11.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§   46-59, 1   March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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”. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 13 .     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. 14 .     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 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 Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 62-65, 8   October 2019, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 15.     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 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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 27 June 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   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   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]     14129/20 27/02/2020 Tatyana Kirillovna SOKOLOVSKAYA 1961   Yekaterina Sergeyevna TUROBOVA 1960   Ms   Sokolovskaya: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Yarensk 09/06/2019   Ms Turobova: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Yarensk 09/06/2019 article 20.2 § 1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 (Ms   Sokolovskaya)           fine of   RUB 10,000 (Ms   Turobova) Arkhangelsk Regional Court 27/08/2019           Arkhangelsk Regional Court 27/08/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - in the proceedings against both Ms   Sokolovskaya and Ms   Turobova 3,500     28235/20 16/06/2020 Aleksandr Vitalyevich VLASOV 1978 protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019 article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO           article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 20 hours of community work           fine of RUB 500 Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 18/12/2019       Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 18/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - in both sets of administrative proceedings against the applicant,     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 18/12/2019 (Article 19.3 of CAO and Article 20.2.2. § 1) 4,000     28238/20 16/06/2020 Mikhail Yevgenyevich YARYGIN 1976 protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019 article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO           article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000           fine of RUB 500 Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 18/12/2019       Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 11/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings against the applicant,     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 11/12/2019 and 18/12/2019 (Article 19.3 of CAO and Article 20.2.2. § 1),     4,000     33849/20 15/06/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich BAZLUTSKIY 1979 protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019 article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO           article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000           fine of RUB 500 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 07/11/2019         Arkhangelsk Regional Court 10/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings against the applicant,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Arkhangelsk Regional Court / 01/11/2019 and 10/12/2019 (Article   20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 of CAO) 4,000     38404/20 14/06/2020 Anna Yuryevna SHCHEGORTSOVA 1985     Konstantin Mikhaylovich KORENKOV 1976   protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO, (concerning Ms   Shchegortsova)       article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, (concerning Mr   Korenkov)       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Korenkov) fine of RUB 5,000 (concerning Ms   Shchegortsova)       fine of   RUB 5,000 (concerning Mr   Korenkov)       fine of RUB 500 (concerning Mr   Korenkov) Supreme Court of Komi Republic 18/12/2019       Supreme Court of Komi Republic 04/12/2019       Supreme Court of Komi Republic 11/12/2019   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - proceedings against both applicants 3,500     38418/20 14/06/2020 Dmitriy Viktorovich NOVOZHILOV 1978   Nikita Vyacheslavovich ALEYNIK 1996   Mr Novozhilov: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   Mr Novozhilov: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   Mr Aleynik: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   Mr Aleynik: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr   Novozhilov)       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Novozhilov)         article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr   Aleynik)       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Aleynik) fine of RUB   10,000 (concerning Mr   Novozhilov)       fine of RUB 500 (concerning Mr   Novozhilov)       fine of RUB 5,000 (concerning Mr   Aleynik)       fine of RUB 500 (concerning Mr   Aleynik) Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 13/11/2019       Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 13/11/2019   Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 06/11/2019     Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 20/11/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings – in all sets of the proceedings against both applicants,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicants were convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / (Mr   Novozhilov: 13/12/2019 and 13/12/2019 and Mr   Aleynik: 06/11/2019 and 20/11/2019 (Article 19.3 of CAO and Article   20.2.2.   §   1) 4,000     38439/20 14/06/2020 Olga Aleksandrovna FEDULOVA 1976   Oleg Andreyevich SUKHAREV 1975   Ms Fedulova: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   Mr Sukharev: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   Mr Sukharev: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019         article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO, (concerning Ms   Fedulova)       article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr   Sukharev)       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Sukharev) fine of RUB 5,000 (concerning Ms   Fedulova)       fine of RUB 5,000 (concerning Mr   Sukharev)       fine of   RUB 500 (concerning Mr   Sukharev) Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 11/12/2019       Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 04/12/2019   Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 11/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - in respect of both applicants,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - Mr Sukharev was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 04/12/2019 and 11/12/2019 (Article 20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 §   1 of CAO),     4,000     41313/20 27/08/2020 Oleg Vasilyevich LYZHIN 1990 protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes Mezhyog 27/08/2018     article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 20 hours of community work         fine of   RUB 1,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 27/11/2019     Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 11/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings against the applicant,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 27/11/2019 and 11/12/2019 (Article 20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 of CAO) 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.