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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s190D88E { height:69.35pt } .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 ANTONOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 20265/18 and 11 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 Antonova 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. They 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 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, and Glukhin v.   Russia , no.   11519/20, §§   49-57, 4 July 2023). 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; 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); 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, 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 Articles 5 and 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.   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 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 under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention; 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 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 Name of the court Date   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]     20265/18 11/04/2018 Yana Gennadyevna ANTONOVA 1979       Krasnodar 07/10/2017 Attempt to display opposition banners on a bridge article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 3   days Krasnodar Regional Court 12/10/2017   ban on public events at certain locations - a bridge 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 by the court of the first instance on 07/10/2017 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     50745/18 17/10/2018 Yelena Viktorovna SHUKAYEVA 1968       Yekaterinburg 16/03/2018 Support of S.   Tiunov   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 18/04/2018     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention (i) on 16/03/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, and (ii) between 06/08/2020 and 07/08/2020 as administrative suspect, until the first instance hearing of 07/08/2020,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Yekaterinburg, 01/08/2020, protest against the arrest of a solo demonstrator – arrest, conviction under art. 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO, community works of 40 hours, final judgment of 07/10/2020, Sverdlovsk Regional Court 4,000     54116/20 15/11/2020 Denis Vyacheslavovich GAUERT 1983   Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Tagil Yekaterinburg, 01/08/2020, Support of S.   Furgal article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days   and   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 05/08/2020     and   Sverdlovsk Regional Court 10/11/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention between 01/08/2020 and 02/08/2020 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings – two sets of the proceedings,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of the first instance on 02/08/2020 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   5,000     2529/21 12/12/2020 Madina Begerchinovna AVSETOVA 1998       (i) Tula 10/07/2020 Protest against restrictions of the right to peaceful protest       (ii) Moscow 21/12/2020 Support of A. Navalnyy (i) article 19.3 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   800           (ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 (i) Tula Regional Court 16/09/2020           (ii) Moscow City Court 11/03/2022     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention:   (i) between 10/07/2020 and 11/07/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled, and (ii) on 21/12/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 28/12/2020 only),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - two sets of the proceedings 4,000     11137/21 08/02/2021 Galina Nikolayevna LAZORSKAYA 1958   Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Sochi 22/06/2020 Protest against the authorities’ various acts and policies including abusive criminal prosecution article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 11/08/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 23/01/2021 and 24/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been drawn up,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - two sets of proceedings,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - a rally in support of A. Navalnyy, Sochi, 23/01/2021 - arrest, conviction under Article 20.2 §   8   of the CAO, administrative detention of 7 days; final judgment given by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 31/03/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately on 24/01/2021, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     12841/21 14/02/2021 Nikita Aleksandrovich KHRAMOV 1995       Kazan 01/08/2020 Protest against constitutional amendments   (Use of an A-shaped frame with a poster "Russian Constitution" with a mourning ribbon on it and flowers under it) article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 7   days Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic 15/08/2020 conviction on account of organising an unnotified public event with recourse to a “quickly (de)assembled object” (see Glukhin v.   Russia , no.   11519/20, §§   49-57, 4 July 2023)   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 01/08/2020 and 02/08/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled; failure to draw up an arrest record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 5,000     32650/21 11/06/2021 Igor Vladimirovich KOSTIN 1971       Nizhniy Novgorod 30/08/2020 Support of N.   Platoshkin article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 24/12/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 31/01/2020 and 01/02/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, 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 the proceedings,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – rally in support of A. Navalnyy, Nizhniy Novgorod 31/01/2020 – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, fine of RUB 150,000 (final judgment: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 07/04/2021)     5,500     39205/21 19/07/2021 Viktor Filippovich RAU 1959   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Barnaul 29/01/2021 Support of arrested political activists including Navalnyy       Barnaul 02/03/2021 Protest against local authorities’ inaction and a call to meet with the Prime Minister visiting the town on that day article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 6   days         article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 12   days Altay Regional Court 02/02/2021           Altay Regional Court 18/03/2021   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offences, and subsequently between 25/01/2021 and 26/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, (ii) between 29/01/2021 and 31/01/2021 as administrative suspect, for drawing up “administrative material” (offence record only compiled on 31/01/2021) and pending trial, and (iii) between 02/03/2021 and 03/03/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, 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 - all sets of the proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – on 27/01/2021 and 29/01/2021 the applicant published on Telegram calls to participate in solo demonstrations in support of political activists including Navalnyy– conviction under article 20.2 §   2 of CAO, administrative detention of 6 days, Altay Regional Court, final judgment of 02/02/2021,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies:   (i) Picketing in support of Khabarovsk protests, Barnaul, 05/12/2020 - arrest on 04/02/2021 (at the exit of the detention centre where the applicant had served his sentence of administrative detention), conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000, final judgment: 22/04/2021, Altay Regional Court, and (ii) Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy, Barnaul, 23/01/2021 – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment: 18/03/2021, Altay Regional Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 31/01/2021 and on 10/03/2021 were each time executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 6,000     43612/21 14/08/2021 Aleksandr Engelsovich SMIRNOV 1961   Borodina Milita Petrovna Magnitogorsk Magnitogorsk 21/04/2021 Support of A.   Navalnyy article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   30,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 16/06/2021   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - two sets of the proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - on 07/09/2021 the applicant published a post in Vkontakte calling for participation in an unauthorised opposition rally in Magnitogorsk – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 §   8 of CAO, administrative detention of 20 days, final judgment: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 24/11/2021 5,000   49869/21 28/09/2021 Ivan KHAMPEL 2002   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 30/06/2019 Protest against uncontrolled use of public funds by the city authorities, distribution of leaflets article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 30/03/2021     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 30/06/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record 4,000   52964/22 02/11/2022 Antoniy Filippovich SHUVALOV 1999       Moscow 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 24/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an 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   55603/22 31/10/2022 Mikhail Anatolyevich PODIVILOV 2000       Moscow 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 01/07/2022     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention 24/02/2022 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.