2388/18;10864/18;11890/18;12297/19;17891/19;36152/19;55054/19;55090/21;18013/22;18438/22;23625/22;26675/22;30211/22

FIRST SECTION CASE OF BATUSOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2388/18 and 12 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Batusova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Lətif Hüseynov, President,  Ivana Jelić,  Erik Wennerström, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 May 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. In some applications 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 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.  The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8.  In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  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. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  In some applications the 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. 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 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 12.  Some applicants raised further complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraph 10 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers 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 6 § 1 of the Convention about the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings 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 of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings; 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, 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 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov  Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     2388/18 21/12/2017 Roza Fanurovna BATUSOVA     community service, 100 hours 14/08/2017 Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region   1,000     10864/18 26/02/2018 Nikita Vladimirovich MISUNOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 30/08/2017 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period. 4,000     11890/18 15/02/2018 Aleksey Petrovich NOVIKOV     suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months, fine of RUB 30,000 29/08/2017 Chaykovskiy Town Court of the Perm Region   1,000     12297/19 23/01/2019 Sergey Igorevich BUZIN Yevgeniy Valeryevich Kulakov Arkhangelsk fine of RUB 30,000 28/12/2018 Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk   1,000     17891/19 19/03/2019 Vladimir Andriyanovich OLEKHOV Yevgeniy Valeryevich Kulakov Arkhangelsk detention for 7 days 15/02/2019 Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk   3,000     36152/19 25/06/2019 Vasiliy Sergeyevich SAYANTS     fine of RUB 30,000 14/02/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to police office on 05/05/2018 for compiling an offence report. 4,000     55054/19 13/10/2019 Nikolay Aleksandrovich ZHALNIN     suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months, fine of RUB 30,000 18/07/2019 Nikolskiy District Court of the Penza Region   1,000     55090/21 22/10/2021 Anna Aleksandrovna TRIBULKINA Yaroslav Vladimirovich Bocharov Bryansk fine of RUB 10,000 02/09/2021 Bryansk Regional Court   1,000     18013/22 10/03/2022 Andrey Viktorovich LASKAVYY     fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months 06/12/2021 Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow,   1,000   18438/22 18/03/2022 Yuriy Viktorovich STRELCHENKO Aleksandr Nikolayevich Girenkov Aleysk suspension of the driving licence for 18 months, fine of RUB 30,000 09/03/2022 Aleysk Town Court of the Altay Region   1,000   23625/22 28/03/2022 Asker Askerovich GEYDAROV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow detention for 3 days 17/12/2021 Moscow City Court Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 17/09/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 3,000   26675/22 05/05/2022 Semen Yuryevich SAVVATEYEV     fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 2 years 08/11/2021 Blagoveshchensk District Court of the Amur Region   1,000   30211/22 28/05/2022 Igor Vladimirovich PAVLOV Valeriy Viktorovich Kanayev Diveyevo suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months 20/04/2022 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court         [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.