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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF GALPERIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 38377/15 and 9 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 Galperin 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 taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. 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   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. 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) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, 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 as to 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 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.     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. 13.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in 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); Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7   February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events; 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; Tomov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5 others, §§   114 ‑ 42, 9   April 2019, as regards the conditions of transport of detainees; and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§   77-90, 30   April 2019, relating to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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 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 complaints under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto 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 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     38377/15 06/07/2015       and       45920/15 26/08/2015 Mark Izrailevich GALPERIN 1968   Vladimir Ivanovich IONOV 1939   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow   Manifestation in support of Charlie Hebdo (Mr   Galperin)   Moscow 10/01/2015   Manifestation in support of Charlie Hebdo (Mr Ionov)   Moscow 10/01/2015   Manifestation in support of political prisoners (Mr   Galperin)   Moscow 21/03/2015   Manifestation in support of political prisoners (Mr Ionov) Moscow 21/03/2015 Manifestation in support of political prisoners (Mr   Galperin)   Moscow 06/08/2014   Manifestation in support of political prisoners (Mr Ionov)   Moscow 06/08/2014 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO           article 20.2 § 2 of CAO           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO detention of 8 days           fine of RUB 20,000           fine of RUB 250,000             fine of RUB 150,000 fine of RUB 15,000             fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 27/01/2015         Moscow City Court 26/03/2015         Moscow City Court 14/08/2015           Moscow City Court 24/07/2015 Moscow City Court 18/03/2015           Moscow City Court 26/03/2015 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention of both applicants from 4.15 p.m. on 21/03/2015 to 1   p.m. on 23/03/2015 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 27/01/2015, 26/03/2015, 14/08/2015 and 24/07/2015; 18/03/2015 and 26/03/2015 In respect of all applications brought by the applicants:   12,000,   to Mr Galperin;     6,000, to Mr Ionov     8,000, to Ms Zakharova,   6,000, to Ms Kalmykova   4,000, to Ms Frolova       45925/15 01/09/2015 Mark Izrailevich GALPERIN 1968   Irina Leonidovna KALMYKOVA 1960   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Manifestation in support of political prisoners (Mr   Galperin)   Moscow 06/11/2014   Manifestation in support of political prisoners (Ms   Kalmykova)   Moscow 06/11/2014     Manifestation in support of political prisoners (Ms   Kalmykova)   Moscow 06/05/2015   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000             fine of RUB 20,000                 detention of   6 days, cancelled on appeal, released on 08/05/2015 Moscow City Court 18/03/2015           Moscow City Court 08/06/2015             Moscow City Court 08/05/2015 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Escorting to the police station and detention from 7.15 p.m. on 06/05/2015 to 0.30   a.m. on 07/05/2015 (Mr   Galperin) Escorting to the police station and detention from 7 p.m. on 06/05/2015 to 07/05/2015 until court hearing (Ms   Kalmykova),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 18/03/2015, 08/05/2015 and 08/06/2015     49760/15 05/09/2015 Vladimir Ivanovich IONOV 1939 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Manifestation in support of political prisoners   Moscow 09/06/2014 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 26/03/2015 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/03/2015     55234/15 17/10/2015 Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949   Irina Leonidovna KALMYKOVA 1960   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Manifestation in support of Navalnyy (Ms Zakharova)   Moscow 15/01/2015   Manifestation in support of Navalnyy (Ms Kalmykova)   Moscow 15/01/2015   Meeting in the memory of Nemtsov (Ms Zakharova)   Moscow 19/04/2015   Meeting in the memory of Nemtsov (Ms Kalmykova)   Moscow 19/04/2015   Meeting in support of small business (Ms Zakharova)   Moscow 26/05/2015 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, article 19.3 § 1 of CAO       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000           fine of   RUB 20,000           fine of RUB 150,000           fine of RUB 150,000           fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 04/08/2015         Moscow City Court 08/06/2015         Moscow City Court 24/07/2015         Moscow City Court 12/11/2015         Moscow City Court 26/08/2015 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention:   arrest and detention on 15/01/2015 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal on 08/062015 and 04/08/2015 (application form of 17/10/2015 - both applicants);   arrest and detention on 26/05/2015 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal on 26/08/2015 (application form of 26/05/2015, Ms Zakharova);   arrest and detention on 19/04/2015 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal on 24/07/2015 and 12/11/2015 (application form of 31/12/2015 - both applicants);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 08/06/2015, 24/07/2015, 04/08/2015, 26/08/2015 and 12/11/2015     25139/16 16/04/2016 Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949   Alla Igorevna FROLOVA 1965   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Manifestation in support of Savchenko   Moscow 13/11/2015 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 18/12/2015 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 13/11/2015 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/12/2015     10336/17 24/09/2016 Mark Izrailevich GALPERIN 1968 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Manifestation against the existing political regime   Moscow 09/01/2016 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 300,000 Moscow City Court 22/04/2016 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport on 14/01/2017 and 16/01/2017, 0.3   sq. m, no access to toilet, food, water,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention:   arrest and detention on 09/01/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal on 22/04/2016 (raised on 24/09/2016);   arrest and detention on 08/12/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record (raised on 08/06/2017);   arrest and detention from 14/01/2017 to 16/01/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record (raised on 24/06/2017);   no written record of administrative arrest on 07/02/2017 and 09/02/2017 (raised on 05/07/2017),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 22/04/2016, 20/09/2016 (as regards proceedings relating to disorderly conduct (fight with a passer-by on 15/09/2016) and 23/03/2017 (as regards disobedience to lawful order on 07/02/2017 when the applicant refused to open the door to police officers who wanted to search the apartment (on unspecified case)                         20784/17 12/09/2016 Mark Izrailevich GALPERIN 1968   Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Manifestation against the existing political regime (Mr   Galperin)   Moscow 05/09/2015   Manifestation against the existing political regime   Moscow 05/09/2015 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 200,000             fine of RUB 200,000 Moscow City Court 16/03/2016           Moscow City Court 30/03/2016 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 05/09/2015 (Ms Zakharova) and from 05/09/2015 to 07/09/2015 (Mr Galperin) for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 16/03/2016 and 30/03/2016     20788/17 12/09/2016 Irina Leonidovna KALMYKOVA 1960 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Manifestation in support of political prisoners   Moscow 06/09/2015 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 30/03/2016 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 06/09/2015 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 30/03/2016     79026/17 09/11/2017 Yuriy Vitalyevich KUCHIN 1967 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Meeting against President Medvedev   Vladivostok 23/03/2017   Manifestation against the existing regime   Vladivostok 01/07/2017 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO         article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000         100 hours of community service Primorye Regional Court 15/05/2017     Primorye Regional Court 25/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decisions: Primorye Regional Court, 10/05/2017, 15/05/2017, 02/08/2017 and 25/08/2017,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article   20.2 para. 2 of CAO for making calls on Facebook to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 12/06/2017 in Vladivostok, final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 02/08/2017, fine of RUB 20,000,   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - administrative conviction for not complying with restrictions on manifestations, under article 20.2 § 1 of CAO, 26/03/2017, Vladivostok, Primorye Regional Court, 10/05/2017, fine of RUB 20,000 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.