CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 16 janvier 2025

.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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; 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 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF MALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 9837/18 and 15 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 January 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Malov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 December 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 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 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; Kablis v. Russia , nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§   50-59, 30 April 2019, and Glukhin v. Russia , no.   11519/20, §§   49-57, 4 July 2023). 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article   35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§   46-59, 1   March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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 and its Protocols, 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 and its Protocol 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; 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 under Article 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 Protocol 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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 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]     9837/18 09/02/2018 Anatoliy Viktorovich MALOV 1980   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Kazan 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 30 hours 09/08/2017 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     11452/18 02/03/2018 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KLEPIKOV 1983   Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 06/09/2017 Moscow City Court distribution of leaflets held by solo participants simultaneously at several Metro stations considered as a single group event Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     15399/18 23/03/2018 Yegor Alekseyevich ARKHAROV 1996   Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 12/10/2017 Moscow City Court distribution of leaflets held by solo participants simultaneously at several Metro stations considered as a single group event Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 08/07/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence 4,000     20078/19 31/03/2019 Vadim Vadimovich GLEBOV 1941   Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod (i) Nizhniy Novgorod 02/06/2018 Support of O. Sentsov and V. Balukh       (ii) Nizhniy Novgorod 18/06/2018 Support of O. Sentsov and V. Balukh       (iii) Nizhniy Novgorod 08/08/2020 Support of Khabarovsk protesters (i), article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 20   hours,     (ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 20   hours,     (iii), article   19.3 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 (i) 04/10/2018 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court   (ii) 04/10/2018 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court   (iii) 24/12/2020 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - third set of proceedings - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,   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 proceedings       4,000     27898/19 04/05/2019 Aleksandr Viktorovich FEDOSEYEV 1990   Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg 05/10/2018 St Petersburg Protest against the appointment of a new Governor of St Petersburg   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 22/11/2018 St Petersburg City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station, detention between 05/10/2018 and 06/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and 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 4,000     28357/19 06/05/2019 Andrey Sergeyevich NIKITIN 1999   Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg St Petersburg 05/10/2018 Protest against the appointment of a new Governor of St Petersburg     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 1,000 22/11/2018 St Petersburg City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 05/10/2018 and 06/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and 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 4,000     43614/19 22/08/2019 Zoya Zinovyevna NIKOLSKAYA 1956       Moscow 24/04/2019 Protest against onychectomy of cats article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 10/07/2019 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 3,500     19856/20 14/03/2020 Petr Sergeyevich DONDUKOV 1983   Lozovskaya Svetlana Valeryevna Ulan-Ude Soviets Square, Ulan-Ude 10/09/2019 Protest against arrests of political activists and calls to take part in a related manifestation   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 10   days 20/09/2019 Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic     4,000     41415/20 08/09/2020 Sergey Igorevich RYABOV 1992   Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Tula 12/03/2020 Protest against the constitutional amendments article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   25,000 27/04/2020 Tula Regional Court     3,500   31832/21 07/06/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich ABLEYEV 2002   Ruchko Irina Yuryevna Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg 25/07/2020 Support of Khabarovsk protesters   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 08/12/2020 Sverdlovsk Regional Court distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 25/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 31/08/2020 only) 4,000   34973/21 20/06/2021 Maksim Vladimirovich MAKEYCHIK 1991   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Kaliningrad 21/08/2020 Support of A.   Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 16/02/2021 Kaliningrad Regional Court   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   35419/21 22/06/2021 Saule Kabashyevna SHAYNAZAROVA 1963   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow 01/09/2020 Drawing attention to social and political problems article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 24/12/2020 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 01/09/2020 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   3174/22 09/12/2021 Vladimir Vasilyevich DOROFEYEV 1993   Avanesyan Aleksey Viktorovich Krasnodar Krasnodar 30/07/2020 Protest of defrauded shareholders article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 1 day Krasnodar Regional Court 09/08/2021 use of a quickly (de)assembled object - a tent   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful pre-trial detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention 30/07/2020 and 31/07/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence report was 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   34931/22 21/06/2022 Alisa Aleksandrovna BOGATYREVA 1992   Savin Aleksandr Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol 06/03/2022 Protest against suppression of opposition media outlets article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000   18/05/2022 Stavropol Regional Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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   38000/22 05/07/2022 Ivan Romanovich KOZIKHIN 1991   Sabirov Rim Faridovich Kazan Kazan 27/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 10   days 05/03/2022 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station between 27/02/2022 and 28/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after an offence report was compiled,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 28/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.               5,000   40532/22 30/06/2020 Vera Petrovna TERESHONKOVA 1958       (I) Syktyvkar 01/05/2019 Protest against a ban on public events in Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar     (ii) Syktyvkar 27/02/2022 Anti-war protest   (i) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000         (ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 (i) 02/10/2019 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic     (ii) 20/04/2022 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of the courts’ buildings- both sets of proceedings Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station (i) on 01/05/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record, and (ii) on 27/02/2022, for the same purpose,   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 administrative proceedings 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.