CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 juillet 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF STRUNIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 39000/18 and 13 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Strunin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 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 complaints 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). 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.     In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also 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; Bouton v.   France , no. 22636/19, §§ 42-68, 13 October 2022 and Tatár and Fáber v.   Hungary , nos. 26005/08 and 26160/08, §§ 36-42, 12 June 2012, concerning restrictions on public performance as an avenue for political expression; Yartsev v. Russia , no. 16683/17, §§ 28-38, 20 July 2021, concerning the administrative conviction for waving banners with slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public assembly; 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 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 12.     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 10 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   4 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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 and, mutatis mutandis , Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4 October 2022), 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 absence of the prosecuting party from the 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 of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of 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; 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 4 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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]     39000/18 01/08/2018 Anton Viktorovich STRUNIN 1982     fine of RUB   1,000 12/03/2018 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza Art. 10 (1) - conviction for the display of slogans/banners/other symbols by participants in public events - In three separate sets of administrative offence proceedings the applicant was fined RUB   1,000 for distributing leaflets about forthcoming anti-government manifestations, Article 5.12 § 1of the CAO, final decisions: Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Penza 02/02/2018, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza 12/03/2018, Leninskiy District Court of Penza 15/03/2019. 4,000     13606/21 12/02/2021 Kristina Salakhovna ALTSHULER 1989 Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg fine of RUB   20,000 03/11/2020 Sverdlovsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – calls to participate in manifestation on 01/08/2020 in Yekaterinburg, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000, final decision 03/11/2020, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 4,000     20524/21 29/03/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich TOLMACHEV 1979 Andrey   Gennadyevich Lepekhin Chelyabinsk fine of RUB   25,000 30/09/2020 Chelyabinsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – calls to participate in a manifestation in Chelyabinsk on 25/07/2020, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   25,000, final decision 30/09/2020, Chelyabinsk Regional Court. 4,000     24232/21 19/04/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich PROKUDIN 1990 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius detention for 10   days,     detention for 4   days,       fine of RUB   160,000 28/01/2021, Tver Regional Court     23/04/2021, Tver Regional Court       30/06/2021   Tver Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – calls to participate in a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Tver, Article 20.2 § 2 CAO, detention for 10   days, final decision Tver Regional Court, 28/01/2021,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period (complaint lodged on 19/04/2021); (2) escorting to the police station on 19/04/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period (complaint lodged on 15/10/2021).   5,000     29002/21 11/05/2021 Pavel Valeryevich CHERNUKHIN 1978 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Ivanets Tbilisi, Georgia detention for 10 days 28/04/2021   Irkutsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – calls to participate in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Irkutsk, Article   20.2. § 2 of CAO, detention of 10 days, 28/04/2021 Irkutsk Regional Court. 5,000     41318/21 05/08/2021 Anton Maksimovich TALYKOV 1998 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius detention for 10   days     09/02/2021   Kurgan Regional Court (two sets of the proceedings with the same outcome and on the same day)   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - two convictions for calls to take part in rallies to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 and 31/01/2021 in Kurgan, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decisions on 09/02/2021 Kurgan Regional Court (in both sets of proceedings). 5,000     45365/21 24/08/2021 Olga Yuryevna KOMLEVA 1979 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB   30,000,         fine of RUB   25,000,       fine of RUB   150, 000 24/02/2021 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic   24/02/2021 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic   17/05/2021 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - disproportionate interference with her freedom of expression on account of her convictions under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for publishing (1) on 26/01/2021 on her Facebook page a call to participate in a rally "Free Navalnyy" on 31/01/2021 in Ufa, final decision 24/02/2021 by the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic; (2) on 21/01/2021 on her Facebook page a call to participate in a rally "Free Navalnyy" on 23/01/2021 in Ufa, final decision 24/02/2021 by the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Republic 6,000     60774/21 07/12/2021 Vladislav Andreyevich OSIPOV 1996 Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova Moscow detention for 5   days 09/06/2021 Voronezh Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – calls to participate in a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Voronezh, Article   20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 5 days, final decision by the Voronezh Regional Court on 09/06/2021,   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.   5,000     3655/22 30/12/2021 Olga Vladimirovna BELOVA 1974 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius fine of RUB   20,000 06/07/2021 Omsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – calls to participate in a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Omsk, Article   20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000, final decision Omsk Regional Court 06/07/2021 4,000   7996/22 14/01/2022 Roman Aleksandrovich PISHCHALNIKOV 1990 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi detention for 10   days 18/08/2021 Krasnodar Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Sochi, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision - Krasnodar Regional Court, 18/08/2021,   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 5,000   11784/22 31/01/2022 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SPIRIN 1975 Yeva Viktorovna Levenberg Moscow fine of RUB   25,000 25/10/2021, Moscow City Court Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – calls to participate in a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Moscow, Article   20.2 § 2 CAO, fine of RUB   25,000, final decision 25/10/2021, Moscow City Court 4,000   35314/22 01/07/2022 Aleksandr Yuryevich LEBEDEV 1965 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow   fine of RUB   20,000 24/01/2022 Saratov Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – calls to participate in a manifestation in support of local business on 22/10/2021 in Saratov, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000, final decision Saratov Regional Court 24/01/2022. 4,000   54423/22 08/11/2022 Ruslan Aleksandrovich BOROVSKIY 1983 Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov Kazan detention for 10   days 08/07/2022 Moscow City Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for the display of slogans/banners/other symbols by participants in public events - public display of symbols of Navalnyy’s organisation, Article 20.3 § 1 of CAO, detention for 10   days, final decision 08/07/2022 by the Moscow City Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his 10 days’ sentence right after the judgment of the first-instance court and even before his appeal was examined by the Moscow City Court. 5,000   56631/22 27/11/2022 Marat Viktorovich NIKITIN 1975 Stanislav Aleksandrovich Seleznev Samara fine of RUB   1,000 04/08/2022, the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - On 21/08/2020 the applicant posted a photo of A. Navalnyy with a FBK sign on it, conviction to a fine of RUB 1,000, Article 20.3 § 1 of the CAO, final decision by the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic on 04/08/2022 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.