12896/20;36133/20;51977/20;53786/20;13359/21;13363/21;26276/21;26343/21;30213/21

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SMIRNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 12896/20 and 8 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 Smirnov 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 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 (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; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023, and Ibragimova v. Russia, no. 68537/13, §§ 28-41, 30 August 2022). 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; 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 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 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]     12896/20 27/02/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SMIRNOV   Tsvingli Vladimir Igorevich Moskou Moscow 10/05/2019 Support of D. Belyayeva       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2019 conviction for covering the face with a scarf with a skull image (see Ibragimova v. Russia, no. 68537/13, §§ 28-41, 30 August 2022) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     3,500     36133/20 03/08/2020 Yuliya Konstantinovna VOLKOVA   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Sochi 30/11/2019 Support of medical professionals article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 03/02/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 30/11/2019 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     51977/20 19/11/2020 Anton Mikhaylovich CHUPRUNOV   Pryanishnikov Aleksey Aleksandrovich Tomsk Tyumen 20/06/2020 Protest against constitutional amendments article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, administrative detention of 6 days   Tyumen Regional Court 02/07/2020 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 5,000     53786/20 19/11/2020 Tatyana Yevstegneyeva BESCHETNOVA   Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevcich Nizhniy Tagil Yekaterinburg 01/08/2020 Support of S. Furgal article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 28/10/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,     4,000     13359/21 10/02/2021 Elvira Mikhaylovna BUTAKOVA   Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Kazan 21/08/2020 Support of A. Navalnyy article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 23/09/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 21/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence 4,000     13363/21 10/02/2021 Dmitriy Glebovich BLYUM   Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan 21/08/2020 Kazan Support of A. Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 30 hours Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 30/09/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 21/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence 4,000     26276/21 30/04/2021 Sergey Petrovich PRONYUSHKIN   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Samara 15/08/2020 Support of Khabarovsk protesters and protest against the politics of V. Putin         article 20.2 § 8 of CAO community service of 150 hours Samara Regional Court 03/11/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 22/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence 4,000     26343/21 04/05/2021 Nikolay Vladimirovich ULITIN   Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg 01/08/2020 Support of S. Furgal   (the applicant used his car as a support for two posters) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 05/11/2020 conviction on account of holding a solo demonstration with recourse to "quickly (de)assembled object" (see Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023)   3,500     30213/21 11/05/2021 Andrey Mikhaylovich SKULTETSKIY   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Barnaul 19/01/2021 Support of A. Navalnyy article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Altay Regional Court 02/02/2021   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 23/01/2021 and 25/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the record of administrative offence 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,   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 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.