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 } .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 } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 AYNBINDER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 49839/17 and 13 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 Aynbinder 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. 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 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 v. Russia (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 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, and 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). 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 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]     49839/17 03/07/2017 Sergey Leonidovich AYNBINDER 1973   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Moscow 11/11/2016 Protest against the toll collection system ‘PLATON’ article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 13/01/2017, Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 11/11/2016 and 13/11/2016 as an administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence report 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 4,000     1600/18 26/12/2017 Olga Arkadyevna KARAMYSHEVA 1958   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 26/03/2017 Taking pictures of the applicant’s son’s solo demonstration against construction fraud article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 28/07/2017   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative 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     1605/18 26/12/2017 Ivan Sergeyevich KARAMYSHEV 1986   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 26/03/2017 Protest of a defrauded shareholder against housing construction fraud article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 26/06/2017   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative 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     5629/18 20/11/2017 Yan Nikolayevich KATELEVSKIY 1981   Kurakin Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Reutov Moscow 09/08/2016 Protest against unlawful actions of a local judge and the police article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 22/05/2017   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     25651/19 30/04/2019 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich YEGOROV 1995   Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna Kazan (i) Kazan 25/10/2018 Picket against attack on political and economic liberties in Russia   (use of cardboard mock-up tombstones)       (ii) Kazan 12/12/2018 Protest against the authorities’ failure to respect the Constitution     (i) article 20.2 §   2 of CAO, administrative detention of 7   days,                 (ii) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   administrative detention of 12   days (i) Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 31/10/2018                 (ii) Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 29/12/2018 conviction for staging solo demonstrations with recourse to quickly (de)assembled objects (see Glukhin v.   Russia , no.   11519/20, §§ 51-57, 4 July 2023)- both sets of proceedings Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention:   (i) between 29/10/2018 and 30/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence report in respect of the events of 25/10/2018 had been compiled, and (ii) between 27/10/2018 and 28/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence report in respect of the events of 12/12/2018 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 proceedings 5,000     20674/21 27/03/2021 Mariya Andreyevna STARIKOVA 1988   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Moscow 07/07/2020 Support of journalist I. Safronov, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 16/10/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention on 07/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative 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     40679/21 25/07/2021 Valeriy Sergeyevich SEMENISHCHEV 1974   Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Kirov 17/11/2020 Drawing attention to environmental problems in Kirov article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   10,000 Kirov Regional Court 03/02/2021   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     41315/21 02/08/2021 Darya Sergeyevna BOLSHAKOVA 1989   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Kaliningrad 10/10/2020 Political protest article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   150,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 23/03/2021     5,000     17991/22 13/03/2022 Anna Valeryevna KRECHETOVA 1970   Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Moscow 06/09/2021 Support of Crimean Tatars article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 16   days Moscow City Court 13/09/2021     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention in the police station between 06/09/2021 and 08/09/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, and after the administrative offence report 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         5,000   34712/22 11/07/2022 Darya Sergeyevna TSYBINA 1999   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Volgogda 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 2 of CAO   fine of RUB   20,000 Volgograd Regional Court 31/03/2022 distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the administrative offence report 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 4,000   35080/22 04/07/2022 Anton Sergeyevich NEKHAYEV 1998   Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2. §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 6   days Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 05/03/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the administrative offence report 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 5,000   48088/22 15/09/2022 Anastasiya Vyacheslavovna ZHDANOVA 1994   Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow Moscow 08/03/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 01/07/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative 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   1697/23 26/11/2022 Alena Igorevna PAVLOVA 1992       Moscow 26/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 25/08/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 26/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative 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   2250/23 29/12/2022 Svetlana Valeryevna GETIYA 1955       Moscow 27/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 05/09/2022     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.