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 } .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 } .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 } .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 SLYUSAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 40683/18 and 23562/19)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Slyusarev 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 restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events. In application no.   40683/18, two applicants also raised other complaints under Articles 5 and 10 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 the restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events. 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). 9.     In the leading case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017, and, more recently, in Pleshkov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, 21 November 2023, 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 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 assembly were either based on legal provisions which did not meet the Convention’s “quality of law” requirements or 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 .     In application no.   40683/18, two 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 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 demonstrations. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In application no.   40683/18, Mr Slyusarev raised an additional complaint under Article 11 concerning other aspects of his unlawful deprivation of liberty. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with this remaining complaint. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Having regard to the nature of the applicants’ complaints under Article 11, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage the applicants may have suffered (see, among recent authorities, Pleshkov and Others , cited above, § 76, and the cases cited therein; see also, mutatis mutandis , Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27 November 2018). 15.     As to Mr Slyusarev and Ms Chernysheva who raised further additional complaints under Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention in application no.   40683/18, 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 these applicants 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 complaint raised by the applicant in application no.   40683/18; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events (see appended table below); 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 that the finding of the violation of Article 11 of the Convention constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage the applicants may have suffered; Holds (a)   that, in respect of the other findings of the violation of the Convention, the respondent State is to pay Mr Slyusarev and Ms Chernysheva, 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 11 of the Convention (restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location Date of the public event planned Restrictions applied Final domestic decision (type of procedure) Date Name of the 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]     40683/18 27/12/2013 (Ms   Chernysheva)   and   01/08/2018 (3 applicants)       Vyacheslav Sergeyevich SLYUSAREV 1986   Darya Vladimirovna CHERNYSHEVA 1991   Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 1976   Zubkov Vladimir Vladimirovich Syktyvkar Syktyvkar   08/09/2017 prohibition on holding the planned public assembly Judicial review under the Code of Administrative Procedure   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 02/02/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station of Mr Slyusarev for compiling an offence report on 11/10/2018. The applicant was arrested during the unauthorised march on 11/10/2018 in Syktyvkar and taken to the police station for compiling an offence record under Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO. He was found guilty of organising an unauthorised rally and fined RUB 10,000. On 09/01/2019 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic overturned the judgment and discontinued the administrative-offence proceedings;     Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - solo demonstration in support of LGBTI community by Ms. Chernysheva on 31/03/2013 in Syktyvkar, conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fined RUB 2,000, final decision taken by the Murmansk Regional Court on 18/07/2013 (appeal)     4,000 (to be paid to Mr Slyusarev)   3,500 (to be paid to Ms   Chernysheva)       23562/19 10/04/2019 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich SLYUSAREV 1986 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou March in support of LGBTI community, Syktyvkar   17/05/2018 prohibition on holding the planned public assembly Judicial review under the Code of Administrative Procedure     Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 10/10/2018   -     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.