38676/21;17/22;1433/22;3010/22;4339/22;4342/22;4347/22;4432/22;5358/22;5636/22;5638/22;5641/22;5645/22;5986/22;6530/22;7134/22;18967/22;20454/22

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KOSHKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 38676/21 and 17 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 May 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Koshkina and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  María Elósegui, President,  Mattias Guyomar,  Kateřina Šimáčková, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 April 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. 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, 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 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; and 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). 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 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 16 May 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui  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]     38676/21 15/07/2021 Tatyana Vladimirovna KOSHKINA Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 16/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 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     17/22 02/12/2021 Tatyana Yuryevna BEZBORODOVA Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station on and detention on 31/01/2021 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     1433/22 30/12/2021 Ivan Viktorovich PROSKURIN Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Gathering in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 02/02/2021 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     3010/22 22/12/2021 Yegor Leonidovich DOROZHKIN Valenkov Andrey Olegovich Nizhniy Novgorod Rally “Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 21/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, delayed escorting to the police station, detention on 31/01/2021 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     4339/22 30/12/2021 Aleksey Sergeyevich ARUTYUNOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 03/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 02/02/2021 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     4342/22 30/12/2021 Yevgeniya Vasilyevna BORISOVA Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 15/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 23/01/2021 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     4347/22 30/12/2021 Aleksey Andreyevich RYABENKO Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 23/01/2021 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     4432/22 30/12/2021 Aleksey Gennadyevich BUZANOV Kochenkov Viktor Valeryevich Izhevsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Izhevsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic 30/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     5358/22 29/12/2021 Yegor Maksimovich FESHCHISHIN Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Event for fair elections   Moscow   22/09/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 27/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station between 22/09/2021 and 23/09/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, and after an offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   5636/22 24/12/2021 Pavel Vladimirovich SADIKOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 28/04/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence in respect of the rally of 21/04/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   5638/22 24/12/2021 Vasiliy Yevgenyevich MASLOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 07/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 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   5641/22 24/12/2021 Mikhail Aleksandrovich MATROSOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   5645/22 24/12/2021 Bashir Aliaskhabovich KURBANOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 25/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 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   5986/22 13/01/2022 Aleksandr Sergeyevich GALKIN Valenkov Andrey Olegovich Nizhniy Novgorod Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 14/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 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   6530/22 22/01/2022 Roman Maksimovich SHTEYN Valenkov Andrey Olegovich Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 24/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021, 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   7134/22 31/01/2022 Nikita Anatolyevich SHULGA Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence   4,000   18967/22 19/03/2022 Aleksandr Ivanovich IVANOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, and after the offence report had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   20454/22 07/03/2022 Grigoriy Ivanovich VERSHININ Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Perm   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 08/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 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.