390/18;2572/18;3770/18;22003/18;22034/18;37096/18;41193/18;43954/18;55220/18;6025/19;6371/19;10167/19;13758/19;15012/19;16606/19;18956/19;22675/19;43731/19;58241/19;14651/20;25910/20;33549/21;49497/21;1438/22;8029/22

SECOND SECTION CASE OF KRAVTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 390/18 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kravtsov 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 23 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 disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. 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 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, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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); Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 123-38, 4 February 2020, as to various shortcomings related to police searches in the applicants’ homes; 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; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7 February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events; 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 Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings and the alleged lack of remedies in respect of restrictions on the right to assembly. 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 Articles 6 and 13 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 13 June 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 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 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]     390/18 07/12/2017 Vladimir Nikolayevich KRAVTSOV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Anti-corruption rally   Nizhniy Novgorod   26/03/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 500         fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 29/09/2017;   Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 29/09/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.45 p.m. on 26/03/2017 until 4.10 p.m. on 27/03/2017;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative‑offence proceedings. 4,000     2572/18 08/12/2017 Vyacheslav Vladimirovich BURMISTROV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Anti-corruption rally   Nizhniy Novgorod   26/03/2017   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 15/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     3770/18 12/01/2018 Daniil Enverovich ROZOVSKIY Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anti-corruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 12/07/2017   3,500     22003/18 27/04/2018 Yuriy Sergeyevich BOBROV Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Rally to support A. Navalnyy   Perm   03/09/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 27/10/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     22034/18 16/04/2018 Vladimir Nikolayevich KRAVTSOV Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod Rally to support A. Navalnyy   Nizhniy Novgorod   29/09/2017 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 20 days Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 17/10/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     5,000     37096/18 19/07/2018 Aleksey Yuryevich VORSIN Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A. Navalnyy   Khabarovsk   29/12/2017     Protest against retirement age hike   Khabarovsk   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO               article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 15 days               detention for 15 days Khabarovsk Regional Court 19/01/2018           Khabarovsk Regional Court 18/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018 until 11.23 a.m. on 10/09/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative‑offence proceedings.     5,000     41193/18 30/07/2018                                   and   8029/22 24/01/2022 Grigoriy Nikolayevich KABLIS Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally to support Mr A. Navalnyy’s presidential campaign   Syktyvkar   07/10/2017     Protest against retirement age hike   Syktyvkar   09/09/2018       Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Syktyvkar   23/01/2021     Anti-war protest   Syktyvkar   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 1 of CAO                   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000                 50 hours of community work               fine of RUB 10,000           detention for 12 days Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 20/06/2018             Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 21/11/2018           Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 29/09/2021       Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 04/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.55 p.m. on 21/09/2018 until 2.20 p.m. on 22/09/2018, and from 11 a.m. on 02/03/2022 until 03/03/2022, when the applicant was taken to the court; (2) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021 and 24/02/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative‑offence proceedings;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in terms of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, which ended with the final decision taken on 04/03/2022, was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.     6,000     43954/18 18/09/2018 Irina Stepanovna NORMAN Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Protest against retirement age hike   Yekaterinburg   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 15 days Sverdlovsk Regional Court 14/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 09/09/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000     55220/18 14/11/2018 Raushan Faizovich VALIULLIN Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Protest against retirement age hike   Naberezhnyye Chelny   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 17/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 09/09/2018, 12/09/2018 and 14/09/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - refusal of the Naberezhnyye Chelny town administration to approve the location and date of the anti-corruption rally on 12/06/2017 (proposal to change the location and time); final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 31/05/2018. 4,000   6025/19 25/12/2018 Dmitriy Olegovich KHAFIZOV Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Protest against retirement age hike   Chelyabinsk   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 08/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   6371/19 21/01/2019 Andrey Mikhaylovich AKHMEDULOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Ivanovo   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Ivanovo Regional Court 31/07/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   10167/19 06/02/2019 Galina Yevgenyevna MANENKOVA Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Smolensk   05/05/2018     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Smolensk Regional Court 22/08/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   13758/19 01/03/2019 Olga Aleksandrovna KARTAVTSEVA Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Protest against retirement age hike   Omsk   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Omsk Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.05 p.m. until 8.50 p.m. on 09/09/2018 and from 1.55 p.m. until 4.40 p.m. on 10/09/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   15012/19 28/02/2019       and     1438/22 21/12/2021 Alan Aleksandrovich LEONGARD Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow           Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Opposition rally   Moscow   05/05/2018     Event in support of the LGBTI community (hanging LGBTI flags on the administrative buildings)   Moscow   07/10/2020 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 1,000             fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 28/08/2018           Moscow City Court 16/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.50 p.m. on 05/05/2018 until 12.30 a.m. on 06/05/2018; (2) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 13/10/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO.     4,000   16606/19 11/03/2019 Armen Vitalyevich KUCHUKYAN Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Opposition rally   Krasnoyarsk   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community work Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 05/05/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   18956/19 25/03/2019 Ilya Borisovich PAKHOMOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Moscow   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 22/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. until 10.20 p.m. on 05/05/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   22675/19 04/04/2019 Pavel Dmitriyevich KIRIKOV Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Meeting with the MP Mr V. Rashkin   Moscow   30/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of 10,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.45 p.m. on 30/05/2018 until 12.30 a.m. on 31/05/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   43731/19 08/08/2019 Oleg Petrovich ORLOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally to support O. Titiyev   Moscow   09/07/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 08/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 09/07/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings. 4,000   58241/19 01/11/2019                                 and   49497/21 16/09/2021       Mikhail Aleksandrovich KRIGER Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019   Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   21/04/2021   Anti-war protest   Moscow   20/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;      article 20.2 § 2 of CAO       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 8 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000   detention for 10 days       fine of RUB 20,000             detention for 20 days           fine of RUB 15,000   Moscow City Court 04/10/2019   Moscow City Court 08/08/2019     Moscow City Court 06/11/2019             Moscow City Court 28/04/2021         Moscow City Court 03/08/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (1) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 27/07/2019 and 20/02/2022; (2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.38 p.m. on 03/08/2019 until 12.40 p.m. on 05/08/2019, and from 10.30 p.m. on 26/04/2021 until 27/04/2021, when the applicant was taken to the court;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative‑offence proceedings;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - protest against the Russian military attack on Ukraine on 20/02/2022 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 25/02/2022. 6,000   14651/20 29/02/2020 Olga Mikhaylovna MAZUROVA   Grigoriy Aleksandrovich MIKHALITSYN       Rally to support Ivan Golunov (Ms Mazurova)   Moscow   12/06/2019   Rally to support Ivan Golunov (Mr Mikhalitsyn)   Moscow   12/06/2019 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000               fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019               Moscow City Court 28/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 12/06/2019, 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, to each of the two applicants     25910/20 22/06/2020 Yevgeniy Igorevich NOSENKO Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally to support Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019     article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 200,000 Moscow City Court 22/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.20 p.m. on 12/06/2019 until 12.07 a.m. on 13/06/2017;   .Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 6,000   33549/21 09/06/2021 Raushan Faizovich VALIULLIN Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Naberezhnyye Chelny   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021;   Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search - search of the applicant’s apartment on 29/03/2022; search warrant issued by the Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic (upheld on appeal on 31/05/2022, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic). Specific defects: no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion); particular circumstances: possible repercussions; no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation; no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation;   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - town hall’s refusal to approve the location of two political rallies on 02/06/2019 and 09/06/2019 (final decision was taken on 19/02/2021 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in respect of both events). 6,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.