CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s527DE03B { width:127.09pt; 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 } .s346C5142 { border-top:0.75pt solid #838383; border-right:0.75pt solid #838383; border-left:0.75pt solid #838383; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; 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 } .s6E932242 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #838383; border-left:0.75pt solid #838383; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; 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 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF ZHOLOBOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 26521/19 and 7 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zholobov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 27 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); Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4   others, §§   106-225, 26   April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; 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; Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, §§ 21-27, 13   July 2021, with further references, and, mutatis mutandis , RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia , no. 44561/11, §§ 109-10, 11   May 2021, as to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression; 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 and Article 4 of Protocol No.   7 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 the 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; 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 18 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Ioannis Ktistakis   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]     26521/19 25/04/2019 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ZHOLOBOV 1972     Rally against the pension reform   Perm 09/09/2018       Anti-war rally   Perm 24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community work of 30 hours             fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 25/10/2018           Perm Regional Court 24/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 24/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,   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     31166/21 17/05/2021 Yevgeniya Viktorovna FEDULOVA 1975 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Event in support of detainees in BARS case   Kaliningrad 15/08/2020       Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Kaliningrad 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 8 of CAO community work of 20 hours             administrative detention of 7 days Kaliningrad Regional Court 26/11/2020           Kaliningrad Regional Court 04/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/01/2021 for compiling an offence record in respect of the rally of 23/01/2021 and pending trial held on the same date,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - all sets of proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Kaliningrad, 22/08/2020, a solo demonstration in support of A. Navalnyy - conviction under article 20.2-5 of CAO, community works of 20   hours, final judgment of 14/01/2021 by the Kaliningrad Regional Court,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 27/01/2021 in the third set of proceedings concerning the rally of 23/01/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     33303/21 13/06/2021 Tatyana Viktorovna DEYNEKO 1957 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally in support of Khabarovsk protesters   Vladivostok 18/07/2020       Rally in support of Khabarovsk protesters   Vladivostok 08/08/2020       Rally in support of S. Furgal and Belarus protesters   Vladivostok 15/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000               fine of RUB   10,000               fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 17/05/2021           Primorye Regional Court 11/05/2021           Primorye Regional Court 11/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/08/2020, after the demonstration held on the same date, for the purpose of drawing up offence records in respect of the events of 18/07/2020, 08/08/2020 and 15/08/2020,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – all sets of proceedings     4,000     36238/21 02/07/2021 Nikolay Nikolayevich GALCHUK 1995 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow 23/01/2021     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO     and     article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days   and     administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 10/02/2021   and     Moscow City Court 10/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 23/01/2021 and 25/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled,   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   5,000     40466/21 27/07/2021 Lyudmila Petrovna SHTEYN 1996 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Event for LGBT rights   Moscow 07/10/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 18/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) between 6 p.m. and 8.40 p.m. on 13/10/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record in respect of the event of 07/10/2020, (ii) between 23/01/2021 and 24/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record in respect of the calls to participate in a rally had been compiled, (iii) between 22/06/2021 and 23/06/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record under article 19.3 of CAO had been compiled, (iii) between 16/12/2021 and 17/12/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record under article 20.3 § 1 of CAO had been complied,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - four sets of administrative proceedings, final judgments of: (i) 18/03/2021, Moscow City Court, fine of RUB   20,000, (ii) 27/01/2021, Moscow City Court, administrative detention of 10 days, (iii) 28/06/2021, Moscow City Court, administrative detention of 15 days, (iv) 21/12/2021, Moscow City Court, administrative detention of 14 days,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - arrest, conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, administrative detention of 10 days for publishing messages on Instagram calling for participation in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy on 23/03/2021, final judgment of 27/01/2021, Moscow City Court,   Art. 10 (1) - restriction on freedom of expression for displaying a totalitarian symbol – the applicant was arrested, convicted under article 20.3 § 1 of CAO and sentenced to administrative detention of 14 days for publication of Nazi symbols on account of her having published in 2018 on her Facebook page a photoshopped image that showed the applicant in an SS cap, accompanied by a comment " Mom I don’t Seig" (I don’t execute a Nazi salute); final judgment: 21/12/2021, Moscow City Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant: (i) on 24/01/2021 (second set of proceedings concerning calls to participate in a rally), (ii) on 23/06/2021 (third set of proceedings, article 19.3 of CAO), and (iii) on 17/12/2021 (fourth set of proceedings, article 20.3 § 1 of CAO) was executed immediately, on account of the lack of a suspensive effect under the CAO   7,000     56935/21 18/10/2021 Nina Igorevna POPUGAYEVA 1996   Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA 1975   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Syktyvkar 23/01/2021 (both applicants)                 Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Syktyvkar 31/01/2021 (both applicants)   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (both applicants)                     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (both applicants) fine of RUB   10,000 (Ms   Popugayeva)       fine of RUB   5,000 (Ms   Uvarkina)           fine of RUB   10,000 (Ms   Popugayeva)           fine of RUB   5,000 (Ms   Uvarkina) Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 28/04/2021   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 26/05/2021       Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 12/05/2021       Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 23/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - in respect of the first applicant Ms Popugayeva , - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) on 28/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence in respect of her participation in a rally of 23/01/2021, and (ii) on 31/01/2021 for drawing up an offence record and pending trial (held on the same date) after such record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – all sets of proceedings in respect of both applicants   4,000 to Ms Popugayeva,   3,500 to Ms Uvarkina         35449/22 02/07/2022 Nikita Igorevich PETROV 1990 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war rally   Kaliningrad 24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 26/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station on 24/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record 4,000     45943/22 08/09/2022 Artemiy Sergeyevich BOBROV 1992     Anti-war event   Moscow 09/05/2022     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO       and     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative detention of   10 days     and     fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2022     and     Moscow City Court 19/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 09/05/2022 and 11/05/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial under article 19.3 of CAO and after the relevant offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - first set of proceedings (final judgment of 19/05/2022),   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative arrest imposed on the applicant in the 1st set of proceedings on 11/05/2022 was executed immediately, for the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.