19016/18;56976/18;41405/21;56248/21;56279/21;57904/21;61341/21;12360/22;30061/22;38307/23

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DMITRIYEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 19016/18 and 9 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 Dmitriyevskiy and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Branko Lubarda, President,  Armen Harutyunyan,  Ana Maria Guerra Martins, 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. They also (except for the applicant in application no. 30061/22) 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); 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 Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62-65, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings and restriction on freedom of expression. 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 under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention; 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 Branko Lubarda  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]     19016/18 06/04/2018 Stanislav Mikhaylovich DMITRIYEVSKIY Sadovskaya Olga Aleksandrovna Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   N. Novgorod   29/09/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 27/12/2017 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 (final judgments of 27/12/2017 and 10/06/2021),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate restriction of his freedom of assembly on account of his conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for having published on his Facebook page calls to participate in the rally "Free Navalnyy" on 21/04/2021, penalty: fine of RUB 20,000, final decision by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 10/06/2021,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on 21-22/04/2021 (proceedings ended on 10/06/2021). 4,000     56976/18 21/11/2018 Yuliya Igorevna BOTUKH Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Rally against Putin’s re‑election   St Petersburg   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       Article 19.3 § 1 CAO fine of RUB 10,000     detention of 3 days St Petersburg City Court 29/05/2018     St Petersburg City Court 29/05/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report 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 first set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the second set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO) 5,000     41405/21 02/08/2021 Valeriy Viktorovich SKRIPALSHCHIKOV Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich Khabarovsk Rally to support Sergey Furgal   Khabarovsk   24/10/2020 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 150,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 29/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report between 1.55 p.m. on 22/05/2021 and 24/05/2021 5,500     56248/21 25/10/2021 Bulat Galiyevich KHALIULLIN Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Forum of municipal deputies (Open Russia Civic Movement)   Moscow   13/03/2021             Article 20.33 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow 25/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report between 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. on 13/03/2021 4,000     56279/21 25/10/2021 Anna Svetlana Afredovna SHAPOSHNIKOVA Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Forum of municipal deputies (Open Russia Civic Movement)   Moscow   13/03/2021 Article 20.33 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow 25/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report between 10.30 a.m. and 9.00 p.m. on 13/03/2021,     4,000     57904/21 25/10/2021 Yelena Anatolyevna PARIY Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich Yekaterinburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg   23/01/2021   Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021             Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 40 hours of community works         40 hours of community work Sverdlovsk Regional Court 19/05/2021       Sverdlovsk Regional Court 29/04/2021 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     4,000     61341/21 03/12/2021 Viktor Viktorovich KARPUSHIN Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Forum of municipal deputies (Open Russia Civic Movement)   Moscow   13/03/2021 Article 20.33 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Izmaylovskiy District Court 04/08/2021   3,500     12360/22 24/02/2022 Iosif Ruslanovich DZHAGAYEV Prosvirkina Kseniya Dmitriyevna Moscow Forum of Municipal Russia organised by "Open Russia"   Moscow   13/03/2021 Article 20.33 of the CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Sovetskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz 27/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest and escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report on 13/03/2021 and on 13/07/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 2nd set of proceedings related to alleged restriction on his freedom of expression - (final decision of the Moscow City Court on 20/07/2022),   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention of 15 days imposed on the applicant within the proceedings related to his freedom of expression was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (2nd set of proceedings which ended with the final judgment on 20/07/2022).       5,000     30061/22 12/05/2022 Aducha Arankovich ERDNEYEV     Rally of Chuulhn (congress of Oirat-Kalmyk people)   Elista   29/05/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 du CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Supreme Court of the Kalmykia Republic 24/11/2021   3,500   38307/23 17/09/2023 Vladimir Sergeyevich NEMANOV Petrova Polina Artemovna Moscow Boris Nemtsov memorial meeting   Moscow   27/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 13/06/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 27/02/2022 for compiling an offence report, between 2.35 p.m. and 6.15 p.m. 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.