24098/21;25805/21;42089/21;43004/21;43195/21;43848/21;43925/21;45552/21;45711/21;47837/21;56283/21;56330/21;57446/21;57731/21;58158/21;58787/21;58850/21

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF VOSKRESENSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 24098/21 and 16 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 Voskresenskiy 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, §§ 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); 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; Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, § 206, 7 June 2022, related to administrative conviction for dissemination of “extremist materials”; 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 Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. 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 Article 6 of the Convention; 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 / 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]     24098/21 19/04/2021 Miroslav Aleksandrovich VOSKRESENSKIY Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kaliningrad 23/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kaliningrad 31/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kaliningrad 21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 20 hours of compulsory work       fine of RUB 15,000         detention for 15 days Kaliningrad Regional Court 16/03/2021     Kaliningrad Regional Court 16/03/2021     Kaliningrad Regional Court 29/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for and after compiling an offence report on (1) 31/01/2021 between 1.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. and (2) 21/04/2021 between 7.00 p.m. and 22/04/2021 (trial hearing). 5,000     25805/21 16/04/2021 Tatyana Dmitriyevna MIKITINA Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally to support Sergey Furgal   Krasnoyarsk 01/08/2020   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Krasnoyarsk 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000           fine of RUB 150,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 29/10/2020       Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 18/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report between 31/01/2021 and 02/02/2021,    Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - first set of proceedings. 5,500     42089/21 04/08/2021 Igor Valeryevich ZHOGIN Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 23/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention of 15 days         detention for 25 days Moscow City Court 04/02/2021       Moscow City Court 30/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on (1) 23/01/2021 at 5.30 p.m. - 25/01/2021 and (2) 24/04/2021 - 26/04/2021,   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,   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 (both sets of proceedings)   5,000     43004/21 09/08/2021 Mikhail Lvovich POPOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Essentuki 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention of 5 days Stavropol Regional Court 03/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     43195/21 11/08/2021 Artem Vadimovich BAYDIN Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kazan 23/01/2021     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kazan 21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000           detention of 15 days Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 31/03/2021     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 27/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention beyond the three-hour statutory period at the police station for compiling an offence report between 23/01/2021 and 24/01/2021 - first set of proceedings,     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - second set of the proceedings   5,000     43848/21 17/08/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich YEVSEYEV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Ryazan 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Ryazan Regional Court 11/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report (1) between 4.30 p.m. and 6.41 p.m. on 23/01/2021 and (2) between 8.20 p.m. on 27/01/2021 and 10.30 a.m. on 28/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000     43925/21 13/08/2021 Sergey Vasilyevich OSKOLKOV Rusnakov Pavel Vladimirovich Tyumen Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Tyumen 21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 25 days Tyumen Regional Court 30/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on (1) 23-25/01/2021 and (2) 21-22/04/2021,   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,    Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Tyumen, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 8 days, final decision by the Tyumen Regional Court on 17/02/2021,   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 (both sets of proceedings). 6,000     45552/21 24/08/2021 Simeon Aleksandrovich GRISHIN Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg 23/01/2021   Anti-war protest   Yekaterinburg 26/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO community service, 20 hours       detention of 15 days Sverdlovsk Regional Court 18/05/2021     Sverdlovsk Regional Court 22/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 26/02/2022 and detention there beyond the three-hour statutory period (second set of proceedings),   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.   5,000     45711/21 26/08/2021 Marina Vladimirovna ZHELEZNYAKOVA Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Vladivostok 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 12/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021 between 12.10 and 4.00 p.m.,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000   47837/21 09/09/2021 Roman Igorevich RAYMOV Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Cheboksary 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic 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,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art. 20.29 CAO for having hosted on his Facebook page a comment considered as an extremist material, fine of RUB 1,000, final decision by the Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic on 10/06/2021.   4,000   56283/21 22/10/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich GORKUNOV Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Irkutsk 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Irkutsk Regional Court 16/07/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   56330/21 15/11/2021 Kseniya Maksimovna MARSHALL Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021   Protest against the war in Ukraine   Moscow 24/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000         detention for 25 days Moscow City Court 25/05/2021       Moscow City Court 10/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period on (1) 02/02/2021 and (2) 24/02-25/02/2022,   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. 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 (second set of proceedings). 5,000   57446/21 05/11/2021 Pavel Vladimirovich CHERNOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pskov 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Pskov Regional Court 17/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 31/01/2021 the applicant was arrested and escorted to a police station where he was detained for 2 hours,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000   57731/21 18/11/2021 Igor Igorevich KAZIKOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 23/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000         fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 23/08/2021       Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention beyond the three-hour statutory period at the police station for compiling an offence report on (1) 02/02-03/02/2021 and (2) 23/01-24/01/2021,   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   58158/21 05/11/2021 Aleksey Andreyevich USOLKIN   Andrey Alekseyevich USOLKIN   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 21/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 02/02/2021 in respect of both applicants,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of both applicants. 4,000   58787/21 25/11/2021 Galina Aleksandrovna FILCHENKO Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 8 du CAO fine of RUB 150,000 Moscow City Court 27/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - the applicant was arrested on 19/03/2021 and was escorted to a police station for compiling a record of administrative offence on account of her participation in a public event, where she was detained between 8.35 a.m. and 2.30 p.m.,    Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     5,500   58850/21 27/11/2021 Timofey Viktorovich ANDRONOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Volgograd 21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 du CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Volgograd Regional Court 10/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an administrative offence record on 21/04/2021 between 7.30 p.m. and 10.32 p.m.,   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.