19880/18;20504/18;22029/18;23385/18;24567/18;27965/18;28388/18;29653/18;29773/18;31417/18;48916/18

THIRD SECTION CASE OF ARUTYUNYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 19880/18 and 10 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 Arutyunyan 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 (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). 9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion in applications nos. 19880/18, 20504/18, 22029/18, 23385/18, 24567/18, 27965/18 and 48916/18 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, § 42, 30 April 2019), 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, and 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfacton. 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 applications admissible; 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 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 § 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 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]     19880/18 19/04/2018 Gayane Levonovna ARUTYUNYAN   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 02/11/2017 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/07/2021 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     20504/18 12/04/2018 Mikhail Mikhaylovich GERASIMOV   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Tyumen 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 30/10/2017 Tyumen 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     22029/18 23/04/2018 Yanis Aleksandrovich OBLAKOV   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 08/11/2017 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/07/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence report 4,000     23385/18 04/05/2018 Arseniy Mikhaylovich POPOV   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 10/11/2017 Moscow City Court       3,500     24567/18 15/05/2018 Oleg Borisovich KORZHANOV   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Tyumen 09/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 15/11/2017 Tyumen 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     27965/18 04/06/2018 Oleg Andreyevich KARELOV   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow 09/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 12,000 04/12/2017 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 09/07/2017 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     28388/18 02/06/2018 Aleksandr Nikolayevich MALETIN   Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Tyumen 09/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 04/12/2017 Tyumen Regional Court     3,500 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to be paid to the applicant,   and   EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicant’s lawyer K. Terekhov       29653/18 08/06/2018 Vladislav Aleksandrovich MIROSHNIK   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 08/12/2017 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/07/2017 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     29773/18 08/06/2018 Anna Gennadyevna SIZOVA   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 08/12/2017 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   31417/18 18/06/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KUNILOVSKIY   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius 07/10/2017 Tyumen Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 18/12/2017 Tyumen 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   48916/18 05/10/2018 Mikhail Vasilyevich SHCHERBAKOV   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow 08/07/2017 Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s Presidential campaign article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 20/04/2018 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/07/2017 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.