17472/18;19878/18;19909/18;24708/18;29489/18;30639/18;4398/19;4583/19;9005/19;10052/19;19621/19;22614/19;59268/19;26798/21;50298/21;50656/21;48547/22;20007/23;41229/23;1191/24

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ARSHINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 17472/18 and 19 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 June 2024     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Arshinov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  María Elósegui, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Stephane Pisani, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 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. 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 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.  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. 13.  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; Yartsev v. Russia, no. 16683/17, §§ 28-38, 20 July 2021, concerning the administrative conviction for waving banners with slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public assembly; 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; and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108‑11, 27 November 2012, concerning excessive length of pretrial detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. One applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention on account of his conviction for the participation in a series of solo pickets held “by rotation”. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 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 raised by the applicants; Holds that there has been 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 27 June 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]     17472/18 04/04/2018 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich ARSHINOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Protest rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 08/11/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 26-27/03/2017,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings. 4,000     19878/18 17/04/2018 Lyudmila Mikhaylovna TYULENKO Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow "Readings of Constitution"   Moscow (Red Square)   12/05/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Moscow City Court 16/10/2017 (served on the following day) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.     3,500     19909/18 15/04/2018 Ruslan Indrisovich GVASHEV Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna Novorossiysk Gathering devoted to public prayer near the Tulip Tree on the Circassian Day of Mourning   Golovinka (Sochi)   21/05/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 16/10/2017   3,500     24708/18 15/05/2018 Aleksey Andreyevich VOLKOV Vorobyev Viktor Viktorovich Syktyvkar Anticorruption manifestation   Metallurgov square, Volgograd   10/11/2017 Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO detention of 2 days Volgograd Regional Court 15/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000     29489/18 13/06/2018 Yelena Valentinovna GUSEVA     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Berezniki   21/04/2021   Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Perm   23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 40 hours of community work         fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 17/06/2021       Perm Regional Court 16/04/2021 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 administrative proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.25 p.m. on 22/04/2021 until the hearing in the first-instance court on the same date,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for the display of slogans/banners/other symbols by participants in public events - disproportionate interference with her freedom of expression on account of her conviction under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO for two solo pickets in support of A. Navalnyy in Berezniki on 07/10/2017, penalty of 20 hours of community works, final decision by the Perm Regional Court on 13/12/2017           4,000     30639/18 11/06/2018 Tatyana Igorevna BARYSHEVA Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Rally in support of the Telegram messenger   Moscow (Bolshaya Lubyanka, near FSB headquarters)   16/04/2018 Article 20.2.2.  § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 16/05/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station between 6.30 p.m. on 16/04/2018 and 10.00 a.m. on 17/04/2018,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings. 4,000     4398/19 02/01/2019 Sergey Eduardovich KOMANDIROV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Demonstration for fair elections   Smolensk   15/03/2018 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 20 hours of community works Smolensk Regional Court 11/07/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings. 3,500     4583/19 30/11/2018 Aleksandr Stanislavovich VINOGRADOV Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Anti-corruption meeting   St Petersburg   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000   3 days’ detention St Petersburg City Court 31/05/2018 (both decisions issued on the same day) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 05-06/05/2018,    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. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO). 5,000     9005/19 19/01/2019 Olga Yuryevna TEODOROVICH Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention of 10 days St Petersburg City Court 20/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station between 9.08 p.m. on 09/09/2018 and 5.30 p.m. on 10/09/2018,   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 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   10052/19 08/02/2019 Guzel Failovna KHALILOVA Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna Kazan Rally against construction of a waste incineration plant   Kazan   25/03/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 08/08/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.     3,500   19621/19 02/04/2019 Igor Vasilyevich PETROV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally against retirement age hike   Kaliningrad   09/09/2018     Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 150,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 22/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings. 3,500   22614/19 03/04/2019 Sergey Sergeyevich BOYKO     Rally against retirement age hike   Moscow   29/07/2018   Rally to support I. Azar   Moscow   29/05/2020 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000             fine of RUB 150,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2018           Moscow City Court 04/12/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (1) from 4.45 p.m. until 7.45 p.m. on 29/07/2018; (2) from 10.45 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. on 03/09/2019; (3) from 4.55 until the evening on 29/05/2020,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - in all sets of proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - protest against breach of electoral rights on 31/08/2019 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision by the Moscow City Court on 06/09/2019. 6,500   59268/19 08/11/2019 Barakh Akhmetovich CHEMURZIYEV Kogan Vanessa Moscow Protest against change of borders between Ingushetia and Chechnya   Magas   04/10/2018   Protest against change of borders between Ingushetia and Chechnya   Magas   27/03/2019 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO                   Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 30,000                   detention of 10 days Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 28/08/2019             Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 12/04/2020 Art. 5 (3) - lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pretrial detention - 14/04/2019 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, Nalchik Town Court, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic (final 08/05/2019), approx. 7 months of detention, charges under Art. 318 (use of violence against a public official) and 212 (participation in acts of mass disorder accompanied by violence) of the Russian Criminal Code, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - first set of the proceedings 5,000   26798/21 24/04/2021 Matvey Andreyevich GOLOVANOV Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevcich Nizhniy Tagil Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community works Sverdlovsk Regional Court 07/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention at a police station on 31/01/2021, between 2.50 p.m. and 7.00 p.m.. 4,000   50298/21 23/09/2021 Nikolay Andreyevich BASHMAKOV     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kazan   28/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 9 days Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 21/04/2021 Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   50656/21 06/10/2021 Ivan Andreyevich YELISEYEV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Izhevsk   21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention of 25 days Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic 28/04/2021 Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls for participation in rallies to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 and 31/01/2021 in Izhevsk, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, community works for 50 hours and detention for 8 days, final decisions by the Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic, on 07/04/2021 and 28/04/2021,   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 administrative proceedings.     5,000   48547/22 03/10/2022 Semen Mikhaylovich PECHKO Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   Tomsk   06/03/2022 Article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 45,000 Tomsk Regional Court 03/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for the purpose of an offence report between 3.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings. 4,500   20007/23 07/09/2021 Polina GRIN-ROMANOVA Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention of 12 days Moscow City Court 24/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.     5,000   41229/23 09/11/2023 Aleksandr Ivanovich USHENKO Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   22/01/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 09/08/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 22/01/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000   1191/24 08/12/2023 Nikolay Vladimirovich ZIMIREV Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   02/03/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 11/05/2023 (final judgment published on 10/08/2023) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.