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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; 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 } .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 } .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 MOLIBOGA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48859/16 and 14 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 Moliboga 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 against solo demonstrators. 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 10 § 1 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators, namely the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention, taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova   and   Others   v.   Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016). 8.     In the leading cases of Novikova and Others , cited above, §§   112-225, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis , Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017). 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   10   §   1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11 .     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, 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 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; and 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). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9 ‑ 11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 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, 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 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measure against solo demonstrators and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 10 § 1 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location Date Purpose of the demonstration Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Date Name of the court Other relevant information Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     48859/16 09/08/2016 Kseniya Grigoryevna MOLIBOGA 1997 Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich Voronezh Voronezh 19/11/2015 protest against malfunctioning of a local university (wearing a mask with a skull picture) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   5,000 09/02/2016 Voronezh Regional Court     3,500     21830/18 19/04/2018 Pavel Aleksandrovich NOVICHENKO 1990 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Perm 22/09/2017 solo demonstration in support of A. Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 19/10/2017 Perm Regional Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6.50 p.m. on 22/09/2017 until 11.00 p.m. on 23/09/2017; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 §   1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §   34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others,   §§ 121-22, 10 April 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     42078/18 24/08/2018 Konstantin Yaroslavovich YURLOV 1991 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow 08/07/2017 distributing leaflets in support of A.   Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   15,000 28/02/2018 Moscow City Court FIFA Confederations CUP restrictions (ban on holding public events on 01/06-12/07/2017) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     44110/18 30/08/2018 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich PETROV 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Cherepovets 16/06/2017 solo demonstration in support of A. Navalnyy article 20.2 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 05/03/2018 Vologda Regional Court   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 3,500     49338/18 10/10/2018 Anna Pavlovna YANTSEVA 1998 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow 08/07/2017 distributing leaflets in support of A.   Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 22/06/2018 Moscow City Court FIFA Confederations CUP restrictions (ban on holding public events on 01/06-12/07/2017) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - applicant taken to the police station on 08/07/2017 as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000     6336/19 04/01/2019 Oleg Sergeyevich SAVVIN 1988 Bontsler Mariya Vladimirovna Kaliningrad Kaliningrad 01/06/2018 solo demonstration in support of O. Sentsov article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,   fine of RUB   10,000 26/07/2018 Kaliningrad Regional Court FIFA Confederations CUP restrictions (ban on holding public events on 01/06-12/07/2017)   3,500     8791/19 23/01/2019 Kamil Faritovich GATAULLIN 1997 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Kazan 01/06/2018 solo demonstration in support of O. Sentsov article 20.2 § 1 of CAO, community service, 20 hours 25/07/2018 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018)   3,500     13507/19 25/02/2019 Androik Aramovich ARTYNOV 1988 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Moscow 08/06/2018 protest against FIFA fan festivals article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000 28/08/2018 Moscow City Court FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018)     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     14669/19 04/03/2019 Andrey Igorevich KISELEV 1992 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Moscow 22/06/2018 support of political prisoners ("Novoye Velichiye" case), article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,   fine of RUB   20,000 04/09/2018 Moscow City Court FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 7.00 p.m. on 22/06/2018; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 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   18545/19 20/03/2019 Valeriy Petrovich KUZMENKOV 1961 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Moscow 31/05/2018 protest against construction works on "Krasnaya Strela" stadium article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 20/09/2018 Moscow City Court FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/05/2018; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others,   §§ 121-22, 10 April 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   21186/19 07/04/2019 Mark Yevgenyevich NEMTSEV 1984 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 23/06/2018 protest against pension reform article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 25/10/2018 Samara Regional Court FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   29373/19 14/05/2019 Anton Gennadyevich SUSHKEVICH 1970 Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg Moscow 28/05/2018 solo demonstration in support of O. Sentsov article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   15,000 14/11/2018 Moscow City Court FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 28/05/2018 for compiling an offence report; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2   July 2019),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   32446/19 16/05/2019 Valeriya Ivanovna SKOROBOGATOVA 1970 Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow Moscow 01/07/2018 protest against pension reform article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 16/11/2018 Moscow City Court FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 01/07/2018; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications,   § 35, 2 July 2019),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   48507/19 12/09/2019 Polina Valeryevna SIZOVA 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 07/10/2018 protest against torture in Russia article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 12/03/2019 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. until 9.05 p.m. on 07/10/2018; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: unacknowledged detention in so far as escorting time is not included in the overall length of the administrative detention (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 95, 4   December 2014); Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 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   18832/23 14/04/2023 Vadim Igorevich KOROLEV 1986     (i) 27/02/2022 Moscow Anti-war protest       (ii) 06/03/2022 Moscow Anti-war protest   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000, (conviction on 15/12/2022)   article 20.2. § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000, (conviction on 01/03/2023) (i) 01/03/2023 Moscow City Court (protest of 27/02/2022)   (ii) 15/12/2022 Moscow City Court (protest of 06/03/2022)   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling of offence report: (i) from 6.00 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 1.00   a.m. on 28/02/2022; (ii) from 2.55 p.m. until 9.25 p.m. on 06/03/2022 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.