22584/19;22137/21;45704/21;47153/21;47500/21;49389/21;49878/21;50520/21;24468/22;34730/22;46341/22;31355/23

THIRD SECTION CASE OF YEGOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 22584/19 and 11 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 March 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yegorov 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 13 February 2025, 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 various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. 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). standing of the applicant’s wife to pursue application No. 22137/21 7.  Following Mr Borodin’s demise in 2022, his wife, Ms Tatyana Anatolyevna Borodina, expressed a wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in relation to application no. 22137/21 lodged by her late husband in 2021. 8.  The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII). 9.  In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Borodina has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For practical reasons, Mr Borodin will continue to be referred to as “the applicant” in this judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 10.  The applicants complained principally of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention, 11.  In the leading case of Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court held, in particular, that there was no “pressing social need” to convict the applicant for making calls to participate in a public event where the breach of the procedure for the conduct of public events was minor, did not create any real risk of public disorder or crime, and had no potential to lead to harmful consequences for public safety or the rights of others. 12.  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 there was no “a pressing social need” to convict the applicants for making calls to participate in a public event and therefore the interference with their right to freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society. 13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 14.  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 Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 104‑05 and 114, 5 July 2016, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards the absence of relevant and sufficient reasons for the house arrest of an organiser of a public assembly; 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; Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, §§ 21-27, 13 July 2021, with further references, and, mutatis mutandis, RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 109-10, 11 May 2021, as to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression; Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, concerning lack of reasons for administrative escorting of the participants of public assemblies to the police station for compiling an offence record and detention there; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the delayed review and lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 15.   Having examined all the material before it, and given the findings in paragraphs 12 and 14 above, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine separately additional complaints raised by some of the applicants under various Convention provisions (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, ECHR 2014; Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 122, 3 October 2017; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).          APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 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 satisfaction. 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 that Ms Borodina has standing to pursue application no. 22137/21 in her late husband’s stead; Declares the complaints under Article 10 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 it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression; 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, and in application no. 22137/21 to the applicant’s heir, Ms Borodina, 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 6 March 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 of the Convention (various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Summary of facts Final decision Date Name of the court Penalty (award, fine, imprisonment) Legal issues Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     22584/19 13/04/2019 Vyacheslav Valeryevich YEGOROV   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Administrative proceedings: 07/07/2018 / Moscow Region / posting a call in a social network on the Internet to take part in the rally against construction of a landfill;   Criminal proceedings: The applicant who is an environmental activist in the Moscow Region protesting against the construction of a landfill was accused of repeatedly violating the rules of organising or holding public assemblies   Administrative proceedings: 23/10/2018 /Moscow Regional Court   Criminal proceedings:   Rulings placing the applicant under house arrest of 01/02/2019, 21/03/2019, 22/05/2019 by the Kolomenskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region; Appeal judgments confirming house arrest of 19/02/2019, 16/04/2019, 13/06/2019 by the Moscow City Court;   Rulings of 30/07/2019; 23/10/2019 by the Kolomenskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region restricting the applicant’s rights to take part in peaceful assemblies, to have access to Internet;   Judgments of 22/08/2019 and 22/11/2019 by the Moscow Regional Court confirming the rulings of the first-instance court. Administrative proceedings: 25 hours of community service;   Criminal proceedings: house arrest, restriction to take part in public assemblies, to access Internet Administrative proceedings: Article 20.2 § 2 - organising a public event without prior notice;   Criminal proceedings: Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code - repeated violation of rules of organising or holding a meeting, public assembly, demonstration, rally or picketing Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (3) - lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention/house arrest - Rulings of 01/02/2019, 21/03/2019, 22/05/2019 by the Kolomenskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region (first instance court); / Judgments of 19/02/2019, 16/04/2019, 13/06/2019 by the Moscow Regional Court (appeal court)     5,000     22137/21 05/04/2021 Vadim Dmitriyevich BORODIN Died in 2022   Heir Tatyana Anatolyevna BORODINA       1) Between 12/06/2020 and 23/06/2020 the applicant published posts on the social network Vkontakte which criticised police officers, who in his opinion, unlawfully initiated criminal proceedings against him;       2) posting a call on the social network Vkontakte to participate in a public rally / 25/01/2021 1) 28/10/2020 Chelyabinsk Regional Court                       2) 31/03/2021 Chelyabinsk Regional Court   1) fine of RUB 10,000                           2) fine of RUB 20,000 1) Article 20.3.1 of the CAO (inciting hatred or animosity, humiliating dignity of a person or group of people based on the ground of social status, committed publicly with the use of information technologies)         2) Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice)     4,000, to be paid to Ms Borodina     45704/21 12/08/2021 Sofiya Igorevna PILYUKOVA   Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich Sochi The applicant organised a rally in support of A. Navalnyy which took place on 21/01/2021 in Krasnodar. 24/03/2021  Krasnodar Regional Court detention for 5 days Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice)   5,000     47153/21 31/08/2021 Roman Alekseyevich TYAGANOV   Kapishnikov Vladimir Sergeyevich Orel 28/01/2021 - posting a call on social network vkontakte to take part in the rally in support of A. Navalnyy 09/03/2021 Oryol Regional Court fine of RUB 20,000 Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice)   3,500     47500/21 01/09/2021 Denis Vladimirovich STEPANOV   Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg 02/02/2021 - reposting a call on the Internet to take part in the rally in support of A. Navalnyy 02/03/2021 Sverdlovsk Regional Court detention for 5 days Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice) 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     49389/21 22/09/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich KAZAKOV   Sharafutdinov Eldar Ramilyevich Orenburg 22/01/2021 - posting a call on a social network Vkontakte to take part in the rally in support of A. Navalnyy 23/03/2021  Orenburg Regional Court fine of RUB 20,000 Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000     49878/21 22/09/2021 Maksim Petrovich NEVEROV   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul 21/01/2021 - posting a call on a social network Vkontakte to take part in the rally in support of A. Navalnyy 24/03/2021 Altay Regional Court detention for 10 days Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 8:11 p.m. on 22/01/2021 and noon on 25/01/2021 when the applicant was transferred to the court for the hearing of his case,   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     50520/21 27/09/2021 Arkadiy Sergeyevich MARKOV       21/01/2021 - posting a call on Internet to take part in the rally in support of A. Navalnyy 29/03/2021 Pskov Regional Court detention for 5 days Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice) 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     24468/22 23/03/2022 Daniil Igorevich BATISHCHEV   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 18/04/2021 - posting a call on a social network Vkontakte to take part in the rally in support of A. Navalnyy 29/09/2021  Volgograd Regional Court fine of RUB 20,000 Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice)   3,500   34730/22 24/06/2022 Nikolay Nikolayevcih LYASKIN   Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Between 18/01/2021 and 23/01/2021 - posting calls on Twitter to take part in the rally in support of A. Navalnyy 24/02/2022 the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction (criminal cassation appeal proceedings) restriction of freedom for 1 year Article 236 § 1 of the Criminal Code - inciting persons to breach sanitary and epidemiological rules and regulations which creates threat for the general public of contracting disease   5,000   46341/22 08/09/2022 Armen Vardanovich ARAMYAN   Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow 20/09/2021 – re‑posting a video of opposition activist’s speech criticising the results of the elections to the Russian Parliament   11/05/2022 Moscow City Court fine of RUB 20,000 Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice)   3,500   31355/23 05/08/2023 Tamara Alekseyevna TIKHOMIROVA   Sotnikov Dmitriy Valeryevich Moscow 02/03/2022 – re‑posting on a social network Vkontakte an investigative video made by the A. Navalnyy’s Fund Against Corruption concerning corruption of a Russian politician, V. Matviyenko 07/04/2023 Moscow City Court fine of RUB 30,000 Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organising or holding a public event without prior notice)   3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.