12800/17;2401/18;22155/19;50244/19;14300/21;20667/21;22706/21;51113/21;53235/21;57328/21;1164/22;1171/22;2154/22;4362/22;6379/22;6748/22;7333/22;8423/22;45483/22

SECOND SECTION CASE OF IVANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 12800/17 and 18 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ivanova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,  Frédéric Krenc,  Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 June 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). STANDING OF THE APPLICANT’S husband TO PURSUE APPLICATION No. 50244/19 7.  Following Ms Irina Vyacheslavovna Murakhtayeva’s death on 2 October 2020, her husband, Mr Aleksey Viktorovich Murakhtayev, expressed a wish to pursue the application. 8.  The Court reiterates that, in cases where an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII). 9.  In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Mr Murakhtayev has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at his request. For convenience, it will, however, continue referring to Ms Murakhtayeva as the applicant in the present judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 10.  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. 11.  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). 12.  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. 13.  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”. 14.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 15.  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. 16.  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols 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 (the CAO); Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; 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, 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 17.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 14 and 16 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.  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; Decides that Mr A.V. Murakhtayev (application no. 50244/19) has standing to pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead; 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 Articles 6 and 10 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 11 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland  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]     12800/17 06/02/2017 Natalya Yevgenyevna IVANOVA Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally in support of N. Savchenko   Moscow 08/03/2016 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 24/08/2016 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 08/03/2016 and (ii) on 12/03/2016, each time 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 - both sets of proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Moscow, 12/03/2016, support of N. Savchenko - arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment of 08/08/2016, Moscow City Court 4,000     2401/18 29/12/2017 Pavel Nikolayevich RUMYANTSEV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally against corruption   Moscow 26/03/2017   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO     and   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 1,000     and   fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 10/07/2017   and   Moscow City Court 14/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 26/03/2017 and 28/03/2017 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled on 27/03/2017,   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 4,000     22155/19 08/04/2019   and   22706/21 09/04/2021 Lyudmila Borisovna BORISOVA Sidelnikova Polina Aleksandrovna Vladivistok       Rally against the pension reform   Vladivostok 09/09/2018         Rally in support of S. Furgal   Vladivostok 25/07/2020     Opposition rally   Vladivostok 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   fine of RUB 10,000               fine of RUB 5000               fine of RUB 75,000 Primorye Regional Court 18/10/2018           Primorye Regional Court 13/10/2020           Primorye Regional Court 01/06/2021   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 09/09/2018 and (ii) on 25/07/2020, each time 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 – the second set of proceedings (final judgment of 13/10/2020)     4,000     50244/19 09/09/2019 Irina Vyacheslavovna MURAKHTAYEVA Born in 1973 Died in 2020   Heir Aleksey Viktorovich MURAKHTAYEV   Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich Nizhniy Novgorod Stroll in memory of B. Nemtsov   Nizhniy Novgorod 24/02/2019 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 08/05/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 05/03/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record in respect of the events of 24/02/2019,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     14300/21 18/02/2021 Ali Bayazitovich KHANTIMIROV Tkachenko Ilya Valeryevich Gatchina Picketing against the constitutional amendments   St Petersburg 16/07/2020 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 20 days St Petersburg City Court 18/08/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention between 05/08/2020 and 06/08/2020 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 5,000     20667/21 25/03/2021 Vladislav Ruslanovich TSUKANOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow 02/02/2021   Anti-war rally   Moscow 06/03/2022     article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         administrative detention of 10 days          fine of RUB 10,000         Moscow City Court 10/02/2021         Moscow City Court 23/08/2022       Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/02/2021 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 - both sets of administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 03/02/2021in the first set of proceedings was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO         5,000     51113/21 13/10/2021 Ivan Aleksandrovich PROKHOROV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow 23/01/2021       Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000             fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 14/04/2021           Moscow City Court 01/07/2021 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 offence (such record only compiled on 26/01/2021), and (ii) on 02/02/2021 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 the administrative-offence proceedings   4,000     53235/21 04/10/2021 Denis Shamshirovich MIRZOYEV Gak Irina Vladimirovna Rostov-on-Don Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don   31/01/2021 article 20.1 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 1,000 Rostov Regional Court 05/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 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     57328/21 10/11/2021   and   8423/22 25/01/2022 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich YEFREMOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Protest against unlawful checking of ID documents   Moscow 14/03/2020       Event with a banner “Capitalism kills Russia”   Moscow 06/11/2020     Meeting with Deputies of the State Duma   Moscow 20/09/2021         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000                 fine of RUB 10,000               administrative detention of 15 days   Moscow City Court 17/05/2021               Moscow City Court 07/12/2021             Moscow City Court 01/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) on 14/03/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record; (ii) on 06/11/2020 for the same purpose (administrative offence record only drawn up on 17/11/2020), and (iii) between 25/09/2021 and 27/09/2021 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 – three sets of proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 27/09/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   1164/22 07/12/2021 Aleksey Viktorovich YELAGIN Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich St Petersburg Spontaneous gathering against abusive criminal prosecution in the "Network" case   St Petersburg 22/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 06/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention- arrest, delayed escorting to a police station (from 1 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.), detention there on 22/06/2020 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 4,000   1171/22 07/12/2021 Aleksandra Alekseyevna POPOVA Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich St Petersburg Spontaneous gathering against abusive criminal prosecution in the "Network" case   St Petersburg 22/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 27/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 22/06/2020 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   2154/22 09/12/2021 Filipp Andreyevich KUZNETSOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow (Pushkinskaya Square)   23/01/2021     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy Moscow (in the vicinity of the Matrosskaya Tishina remand center)   23/01/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                   article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO     fine of RUB 20,000                   administrative detention of 10 days     Moscow City Court 11/06/2021                 Moscow City Court 29/06/2021   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record under article 20.2§ 5 of the CAO, and (ii) between 23/01/2021 in the evening and 25/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record under article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO 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,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 25/01/2021 in the second set of proceedings was executed immediately, on account of the lack of a suspensive effect of the appeal under the CAO 5,000   4362/22 07/01/2022 Sergey Sergeyevich MITROKHIN Lokhmutov Aleksandr Sergeyevich Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow 23/01/2021     Event to protest against housing policy   Moscow 17/03/2021 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 300,000             fine of RUB 150,000 Moscow City Court 07/07/2021           Moscow City Court 19/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (i) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 12/03/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record in respect of the rally of 23/01/2021; and (ii) arrest, escorting to a police station on 17/03/2021 for compilation of the administrative material (the applicant was released against an undertaking to appear for drawing up an offence record); and another count of arrest and detention on 29/03/2021 (when the applicant went to a police station for drawing up an offence record) 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 - both sets of proceedings     8,000   6379/22 29/12/2021 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich BORISENKO Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 30/06/2021 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. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, administrative detention of 25 days for publishing on 24/02/2022 a call for participation in an anti-war rally (scheduled for the same date) to the applicant’s Twitter account, final judgment of 01/03/2022 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 25/02/2022 (second set of proceedings) was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of the appeal under the CAO                 5,000   6748/22 30/12/2021 Vera Nikolayevna PRYAZHKINA Prosvirkina Kseniya Dmitriyevna Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Smolensk 23/01/2021     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Smolensk 21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000             fine of RUB 15,000 Smolensk Regional Court 28/07/2021         Smolensk Regional Court 07/07/2021 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 3,500   7333/22 20/01/2022 Vladimir Valeryevich BELIKOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Meeting A. Navalnyy at the Vnukovo Airport of Moscow   Moscow 17/01/2021             article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, delayed escorting to a police station on 17/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record (such record only compiled on 27/01/2021),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   45483/22 26/08/2022 Yevgeniya Nikolayevna KHOKHLOVA Sabirov Rim Faridovich Kazan Anti-war rally   Kazan 06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 27/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 06/03/2022 and 07/03/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been drawn up.     4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.