CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .s7368EE06 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .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 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KADULIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 3001/18 and 11 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kadulin 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 4 July 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). 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 5 § 1 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 §   1 of the Convention. 8.     The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom , 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in   fine , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III). 9.     In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13   February 2018, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and   5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, the Court has already found a violation in respect of the 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 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 well-established case-law (see 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); Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos.   60921/17 and 7202/18, §§   77 ‑ 90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), concerning disproportionate measures taken against organisers and participants in 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 13.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), 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 the acts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning unlawful detention 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 complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty); 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 the 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 5 September 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 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects Other complaints under   well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     3001/18 19/12/2017 Valeriy Aleksandrovich KADULIN 1975     11/05/2016 11/05/2016 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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§   63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).   The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 19/06/2017.   3,000     32759/18 04/07/2018 Dmitriy Anatolyevich LYSENKO 1969 Antonova Lyudmila Petrovna Yekaterinburg 05/08/2016, 1 p.m. 06/08/2016, 9 a.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26   June 2018)   The final decision on the matter was taken by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 23/08/2018.   3,000     35471/18 30/07/2018 Andrey Yuryevich BACHURIN 1981 Prikhodkina Valeriya Yuryevna Chelyabinsk 28/07/2018 31/07/2018 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)   3,000     49366/18 10/10/2018 Vadim Vilyevich KHAYRULLIN 1972 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius 13/03/2018, 9.50 a.m. 13/03/2018, 3.45 p.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art.   27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v.   Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28   November 2017) 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 the proceedings which ended on 26/04/2018, Kaliningrad Regional Court 4,000     30270/20 29/06/2020 Svetlana Petrovna NEVZOROVA 1970     03/03/2020 11/03/2020 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)   3,000     33862/21 24/06/2021 Kristina Nikolayevna SIDOROVA 2001 Pryanishnikov Aleksey Aleksandrovich Tomsk 13/03/2021 13/03/2021 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. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public manifestations - the applicant was arrested during her participation in a public event, Open Russia Civic Movement on 13/03/2021, convicted under Art. 20.33 of CAO, and sentenced to an administrative fine of RUB 15,000; final decision of the Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow on 20/05/2021 4,000     34922/21 20/06/2021 Vladislav Yuryevich ZLOBIN 1992 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul 22/01/2021 7.05 p.m. 23/01/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case 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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §   35, 8 October 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 - Final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 28/01/2021;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 23/01/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - Administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised public event (rally) in support to Mr A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021. Administrative detention of 10 days. Final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 28/01/2021 5,000     45158/21 21/08/2021 Vadim Igorevich ANTONOV 1980 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi 14/02/2021 14/02/2021 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 - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 24/03/2021;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - sticking posters with calls to participate in an opposition rally on 14/02/2021 / Art. 20.2.5 of CAO / Moscow City Court, 24/03/2021 4,000     47242/21 10/09/2021 Aleksey Dmitriyevich DOROZHKIN 1986 Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov 22/01/2021 4 p.m. 23/01/2021 2.30 p.m. 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 - final decision by the Pskov Regional Court on 15/03/2021;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Pskov, Article   20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 5   days, final decision by the Pskov Regional Court on 15/03/2021.             5,000   2546/22 20/12/2021 Aleksandr Nikolayevich NOSACHEV 1982 Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Moscow 27/02/2022 27/02/2022 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 - final decision on 17/06/2022, the Moscow City Court;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court 5,000   3801/22 24/12/2021 Eldar Aliyevich KURMAKAYEV 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 21/04/2021 11 a.m. 21/04/2021 3 p.m. 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Volgograd, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision Volgograd Regional Court 24/06/2021 4,000   25698/22 17/05/2022 Aleksey Olegovich KOLEGOV 1970 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou 21/04/2021 23/04/2021 Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§   63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Syktyvkar, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 25,000, final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 17/11/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.