CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 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 } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; 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 } .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 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TYURIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 795/20 and 17 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tyurin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 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 disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. The 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 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 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 case 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, §§   432-42, 7 February 2017; Glukhin v. Russia , no.   11519/20, §§   49-57, 4 July 2023, and Ibragimova v.   Russia , no.   68537/13, §§   28-41, 30 August 2022). 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 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     The 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; 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 (CAO); Frumkin v. Russia , no.74568/12, 5   January 2016, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no. 76204/11, 4   December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no. 21613/07, 3   October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of 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 12.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. 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, mutatis mutandis , Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   5809/17 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 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and/or its Protocols 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 12 September 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   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]     795/20 18/12/2019 Artem Dmitriyevich TYURIN 2000   Arshinova Valeriya Aleksandrovna Moscow Moscow 02/08/2019 Support of Ye.   Zhukov     article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 8 days Moscow City Court 26/08/2019     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     10130/20 13/02/2020 Yulian Sergeyevich LASHKIN 1996   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 24/07/2019 Support of LGBT community after a murder of an LGBT activist   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow Regional Court 20/09/2019   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 24/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     55368/20 21/11/2020 Yekaterina Vladimirovna KORCHINSKAYA 1999   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Vladivostok 16/06/2020 Support of eco-activists   article 20.2 § 1 of CAO   administrative fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 08/09/2020 ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of a court building Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 16/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     2962/21 22/12/2020 Gleb Vladimirovich SOKOLOV 1997   Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich Moscow Moscow, 09/06/2020, Support of arrested activists D. Ivanov and E.   Yunusov article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 15   days 22/06/2020, Moscow City Court   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     13372/21 10/03/2021 Timur Arturovich TUKHVATULLIN 2001   Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Kazan 21/08/2020   Support of A.   Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 30   hours Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 30/09/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention: (1) on 21/08/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence, and (2) between 2.30 p.m. of 23/01/2021 and 25/01/2021, as administrative suspect,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally in support of A.   Navalnyy, 23/01/2021, Kazan – arrest, conviction under article   20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment: 14/04/2021, Supreme Court of Republic of Tatarstan. 4,000     20673/21 25/03/2021 Sergey Andreyevich DESNITSKIY 1999   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 31/05/2020 Protest against use of force against lawyers in Kabardino-Balkaria and other regions   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2020 rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 31/05/2020 as an administrative suspect (the administrative offence record only compiled on 04/06/2020),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     21974/21 07/04/2021 Natalya Andreyevna BARANOVA 1999   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 22/03/2020 Protest against politics of President Putin   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 28/10/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     23460/21 13/04/2021 Nikita Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV 2000   Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich Moscow Moscow 09/06/2020 Support of arrested protest activists D.   Ivanov and E.   Yunusov article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 3,500     24181/21 16/04/2021 Mariya Sergeyevna CHERNYKH 1987   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow, 07/07/2020, Support of journalist I.   Safonov article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/10/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     3,500   42995/21 10/08/2021 Raisa Vladimirovna MOROZOVA 1954   Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk 24/12/2020 Support of A.   Navalnyy   article 20.1 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   500 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 10/02/2021   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   52725/21 15/10/2021 Daniil Enverovich ROZOVSKIY 1997   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 23/01/2021 Support of A.   Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 16/04/2021     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of 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   30738/22 07/06/2022 Svetlana Vasilyevna NAKHIMOVICH 1948   Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Novgorod 03/03/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   20,000 Novgorod Regional Court 20/04/2022 distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; failure to draw up an escort record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   31741/22 07/06/2022 Yelena Vladimirovna PAVLOVA 1946   Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Novgorod 03/03/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   20,000 Novgorod Regional Court 19/04/2022 distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   47795/22 15/09/2022 Ilya Khaimovich MYASKOVSKIY 1971   Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod 19/03/2022 Anti-war protest   (the applicant was taking pictures of another person who staged an anti-war solo demonstration)     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 06/07/2022   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     4,000   52475/22 20/10/2022 Yelizaveta Andreyevna NEMZER 1996       Moscow 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 27/07/2022     distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 24/02/2022 and (ii) on 02/03/2022, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up the 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,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Rally against the war in Ukraine, 02/03/2022, Moscow – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, final judgment of 23/06/2022 by the Moscow City Court 4,000   57638/22 19/11/2022 Maria Nikolayevna PETROVSKAYA 1985   Tyurina Kristina Olegovna Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod 19/03/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court 20/07/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, applicant taken to a police station on 19/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   3804/23 25/12/2022 Aleksandr Nikolayevich GORELOV 1984   Tyurina Kristina Olegovna Nizhniy Novgorod Reshetikha Nizhniy Novgorod Region 06/03/2022 Anti-war protest   (the applicant parked his car with anti-war posters on it in a town centre and left the venue)     article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 25/08/2022     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 07/07/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence in respect of the events of 06/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   12794/23 24/10/2022 Polina Aleksandrovna LABINSKAYA 1982       Moscow 07/03/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   administrative fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 01/07/2022 ban on public events at certain locations - the State Duma Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   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.