20140/21;37509/21;40129/21;43252/21;45565/21;54269/21;16587/22;38018/22;38113/22;42451/22;51318/22;51324/22;51338/22

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SMOLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 20140/21 and 12 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 Smolev 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 raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. 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, §§ 102 and 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 14.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under the Convention concerning other aspects of their deprivation of liberty, fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings and freedom of expression. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-13 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; 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 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 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]     20140/21 23/03/2021 Yaroslav Aleksandrovich SMOLEV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of S. Furgal   Khabarovsk   28/11/2020 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 12/01/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) arrest and detention between 28/11/2020 and 30/11/2020 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been complied, and (ii) on 06/03/2022 and on 07/04/2022, each time the applicant was escorted to a police station and detained there for the sole purpose of compiling an offence record (under articles 20.6.1 § 1 of the CAO and 20.3.3 of the CAO, respectively), no written record of the administrative escorting,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Khabarovsk, 06/03/2022, a solo demonstration against the war in Ukraine - arrest and conviction under article 20.3.3 § 1of CAO, fine of RUB 30,000, final judgment of 01/06/2022 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court 4,000     37509/21 10/07/2021 Oleg Nikolayevich KOVALEV Borodina Milita Petrovna Magnitogorsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Magnitogorsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional 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 - both sets of administrative offence proceedings (final judgments of 24/03/2021 and 24/11/2021),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 for publishing on 06/09/2021 a call for participation in a Left Front rally (scheduled for 12/09/2021) on VKontakte, final judgment of 24/11/2021 by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court 4,000     40129/21 28/07/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich KOZLOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Ulyanovsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 8 days Ulyanovsk Regional Court 03/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect,   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 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of the appeal under the CAO 5,000     43252/21 17/08/2021 Marina Lvovna SAVVATEYEVA     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Chita   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 15/03/2021 Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Chita, 31/01/2021, solo demonstration in support of A. Navalnyy – conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, community service of 20 hours, final judgment of 09/03/2021 by the Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 4,000     45565/21 25/08/2021 Kirill Vladislavovich ALEKHIN     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Kazan   31/01/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 14/04/2021   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) from 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled, and (ii) from 24/02/2022 to 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – an anti-war solo demonstration, 24/02/2022, Kazan – arrest, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8, administrative detention of 10 days, final judgment of 03/03/2022 by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan,   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 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     54269/21 13/10/2021 Mikhail Yuryevich GEORGI Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Picket in support of A. Navalnyy   Taganrog   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Rostov Regional Court 13/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     16587/22 08/03/2022 Andrey Mikhaylovich GOLOSOV Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally against the pension reform   Vladivostok   15/09/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 16/01/2019 (proceedings discontinued for the lack of corpus delicti)   The applicant brought compensation proceedings; the courts awarded him RUB 10,000 (EUR 115) for unlawful administrative prosecution and rejected the remainder of his claim for compensation, final judgment: 08/09/2021, Supreme Court of Russia Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/09/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 3,900     38018/22 06/07/2022 Mikhail Aleksandrovich SALOSIN Kabirov Rushan Rafisovich Kazan Anti-war rally   Kazan   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 11/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 4,000     38113/22 02/06/2022 Yaroslav Vladimirovich YARTSEV Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 15/12/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 23/01/2021 and 24/01/2021 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   42451/22 18/08/2022 Dmitriy Vladimirovich BLIZNETSOV Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Nizhniy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 27/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting toa police station, detention between 06/03/2022 and 07/03/2022 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   51318/22 21/10/2022 Taryana Nikolayevna BRYATKOVA Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Boris Nemtsov memorial rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/02/2022 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   51324/22 20/10/2022 Mariya Alekseyevna KORCHAGINA     Boris Nemtsov memorial rally   Moscow 27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/02/2022 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   51338/22 21/10/2022 Maina Anatolyevna POTOLOVA Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   01/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 01/03/2022 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.