CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .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 M.S. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 67486/13 and 14 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of M.S. 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 20 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 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 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 (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.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-13 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 raised by the applicants under 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 11 July 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]     67486/13 03/10/2013 M.S. 1984     Rally in support of political prisoners   Saratov   06/05/2013 Article 20.1 § 1 of CAO detention of 1 day Saratov Regional Court 21/06/2013 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/05/2013 until 07/05/2013. 4,000     23466/18 10/05/2018 Aleksandr Andreyevich YEREMEYEV 1987 Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich Sochi Rally against unscrupulous commercial schemes   Gelendzhik   05/08/2017 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 14/11/2017   3,500     54796/18 01/11/2018 Alina Aleksandrovna MUZYCHENKO 1985 Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna Moscow Rally in support of Telegram messenger   Moscow (Bolshaya Lubyanka, near FSB headquarters)   16/04/2018 Article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 16/05/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station between 6.30   p.m. on 16/04/2018 and 10.00 a.m. on 17/04/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.       4,000     56198/18 07/11/2018 (5   applicants) Mikhail Mikhaylovich GERASIMOV 1986   Anton Sergeyevich MIKHALCHUK 1990   Aleksandr Nikolayevich RUZNYAEV 1997   Gleb Ruslanovich SHAFIGULLIN 1999   Mikhail Vladislavovich UVAROV 1995     Political protest against the President of Russia   Tyumen   08/03/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 (each applicant) Tyumen Regional Court 07/05/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. .     3,500, to each of the applicants     14961/19 23/02/2019 Nikolay Yuryevich PETROSYAN 1999   Oleg Olegovich USOV 2000   Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg Political protest in the form of art performance   St Petersburg   07/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 (each applicant) St   Petersburg City Court 23/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 07/05/2018 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000,   to each applicant     19720/19 01/04/2019 Aleksandr Nikolayevich KRYLOV 1986 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Distribution of leaflets in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   08/07/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 24/12/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 08/07/2017 between 3.40 p.m. and 5.00 p.m.,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000     49731/19 12/09/2019 Aleksandr Sergeyevich SOLOZHENKO 1995 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally against pension reform   Krasnoyarsk   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 20 days Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 14/03/2019 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     54546/19 09/10/2019 Maksim Igorevich NAUMOV 1999 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow Internet Freedom Rally   Moscow   10/03/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 06/06/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 10/03/2019 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000     55711/19 15/10/2019 Igor Yuryevich ROMANOV 1998 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow Internet Freedom Rally   Moscow   10/03/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 28/06/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 10/03/2019 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   57959/21 12/11/2021 Leonid Vyacheslavovich TOMILOV 1982 Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg   23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community works Sverdlovsk Regional Court 02/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   72/22 05/12/2021 Fedor Vladimirovich MILYAYEV 2000 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021   Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 29/10/2021         Moscow City Court 07/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021 between 1.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. and on 02/02/2021 between 12.50 p.m. and 7.10 p.m.,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings 4,000   27420/22 17/05/2022 Marina Olegovna SHIRYAYEVA 1995 Zyryanova Mariya Sergeyevna St Petersburg Performance to   commemorate the International Day against Violence against Women   St Petersburg   25/11/2021       Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 St Petersburg City Court 18/01/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 25-27/11/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   31752/23 18/07/2023 Lyudmila Borisovna VORSINA 1963     Anti-war protest   Moscow, Pushkinskaya Square   24/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   150,000 Moscow City Court 23/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station between 7.00 p.m. on 24/02/2022 and 2.00 a.m. on 25/02/2022 4,000   31844/23 21/07/2023 Svetlana Ilshatovna DMITRIYEVA 1986     Anti-war protest   Moscow   13/03/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 21/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 13/03/2022, between 2.30 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. 4,000   31848/23 20/07/2023 Yekaterina Andreyevna KOROLEVA 1999     Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 21/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 06/03/2022, between 3.35 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.