33409/17;55766/17;62377/17;38452/18;50054/18;16397/19;17104/19;24523/19;46857/19;5413/20;1234/21;23655/21;28933/21;51947/21

SECOND SECTION CASE OF SAULYAK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 33409/17 and 13 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Saulyak and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,  Frédéric Krenc,  Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 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 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.  The applicants complained 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. 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. 9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.  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. 11.  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; 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; 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 demonstrations; Butkevich, cited above, §§ 121‑40, Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 117-45, 5 April 2022 and Kenareva and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 71779/17 and 5 others, § 11, 9 February 2023 with further references, as to other restrictions on the right to freedom of expression; and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 93-142, ECHR 2016 (extracts), as to disproportionate measures in respect of participants and organisers of public events. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under the Convention or Protocols to it. In view of the above findings, 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 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 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings; 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland  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]     33409/17 17/04/2017 Mikhail Vladimirovich SAULYAK   fine of RUB 30,000 31/01/2017 Volskiy District Court of Saratov Region   1,000     55766/17 24/07/2017 Ivan Vladimirovich LOGINOVSKIY   fine of RUB 30,000 and 18-month driving licence suspension 10/07/2017 Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk   1,000     62377/17 28/07/2017 Beyrut Arif Ogly MEKHTIYEV   13-month driving licence suspension 11/07/2017 Arkhangelsk Regional Court   1,000     38452/18 01/08/2018 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich NIZOVTSEV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius 10 days of detention    5 days of detention   fine of RUB 30,000 Moscow City Court   06/02/2018   10/12/2018   13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 31/01/2021 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant was:   (i) sentenced to detention in connection with his webcast on 28/01/2018 on ongoing nationwide protest rallies (Art. 19.3 of CAO, final decision on 06/02/2018 by the Moscow City Court);   (ii) arrested and fined for organising a protest rally on 09/09/2018 because of webcasting from the rally venue (Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO, final decision on 10/12/2018 by the Moscow City Court);   (iii) arrested on 31/01/2021 and sentenced to detention for reposting on 29/01/2021 a call to participate in a rally on 31/01/2021 (Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO, final decision on 13/05/2021 by the Moscow City Court). 6,000     50054/18 16/10/2018 Roman Aleksandrovich KOROTAYEV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius fine of RUB 2,000 23/04/2018 Berezniki Town Court of Perm Region Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – the applicant was fined for organising the distribution of election-related leaflets (Art. 5.69 of CAO, final decision on 23/04/2018 by the Berezniki Town Court of Perm Region) (Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, 5 April 2022). 3,000     16397/19 11/03/2019 Yelena Sergeyevna ARKADYEVA Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 11/09/2018 Perm Regional Court Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - the applicant was fined for participation in a rally on 05/05/2018 (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 11/09/2018 by the Perm Regional Court). 3,500     17104/19 21/03/2019 Yelena Vladimirovna MALAKHOVSKAYA Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius fine of RUB 20,000 24/09/2018 Moscow City Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – the applicant was fined for organising a protest rally in Moscow on 05/05/2018, by way of calling others to participate in it during her webcast covering nationwide rallies on that date (Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO, final decision on 24/09/2018 by the Moscow City Court). 3,500     24523/19 08/04/2019 Vladimir Viktorovich ARSENTYEV Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 08/10/2018  Moscow City Court Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - the applicant was at the venue of an anticorruption rally on 12/06/2017 as a freelance reporter on assignment from the newspaper outlet of the human-rights NGO "For Human Rights"; he was arrested and fined as the rally’s participant (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 08/10/2018 by the Moscow City Court).   4,000     46857/19 18/08/2019 Viktoriya Igorevna AREFYEVA Grachev Anton Sergeyevich Strasskirchen fine of RUB 20,000 19/02/2019 St Petersburg City Court Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - the applicant was fined for organising a “performance” against the pension reform on 07/11/2018 (Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO, final decision on 19/02/2019 by the St Petersburg City Court). 3,500   5413/20 04/01/2020 Vladimir Vasilyevich GOLUBEV     15 days of detention 18/10/2019 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court   1,000   1234/21 16/12/2020 Milana Olegovna ZEMTSOVA Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk fine of RUB 20,000   fine of RUB 20,000   fine of RUB 20,000 12/10/2020 Moscow City Court     12/10/2020 Moscow City Court   29/06/2021 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) on 28/05/2000 and 22/06/2020 escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports; (ii) on 18-20/07/2020 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - the applicant was arrested and fined for participation in, what the courts classified as, an assembly requiring prior notification (a rally on 28/05/2020 to support journalist I. Azar) (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 12/10/2020 by the Moscow City Court),   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – the applicant was arrested and fined for participating in an assembly on 22/06/2020 and for organising another one on 18/07/2020 (Art. 20.2 § 5 and Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO; final decisions on 29/06/2021 and 12/10/2020, respectively, by the Moscow City Court). 4,000   23655/21 20/04/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich PLYUSHCHEV Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 22/10/2020 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 28/05/2020 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - the applicant was arrested and fined for participating in, what the courts classified as, an assembly requiring prior notification (a rally on 28/05/2020 to support journalist I. Azar) (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 22/10/2020 by the Moscow City Court). 4,000   28933/21 20/05/2021 Petr Sergeyevich PARKHOMENKO Gamazov Alan Olegovich Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 20/11/2020 Moscow City Court Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - the applicant was fined for participating in a rally to support I. Safronov on 13/07/2020 (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 20/11/2020 by the Moscow City Court). 3,500   51947/21 08/10/2021 Maksim Sergeyevich PYATUNIN Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 32 hours of community work 21/04/2021 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to community work for participating in an protest rally on 31/01/2021 (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 21/04/2021 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court). 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.