43656/21;43658/21;43660/21;43663/21;43667/21;43669/21;46558/21;46615/21;46934/22;47526/22;47531/22;47816/22;9551/23;10131/23;11863/23;13772/23

FIRST SECTION CASE OF VASILYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 43656/21 and 15 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 Vasilyev 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 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, 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. 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 paragraph 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 the applicants’ complaints 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 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 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 charges 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]     43656/21 12/08/2021 Andrey Valeryevich VASILYEV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic 23/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     43658/21 12/08/2021 Nikolay Vladimirovich VUSHNYAKOV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvash 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. 3,500     43660/21 12/08/2021 Pavel Nikolayevich GARAMOV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   23/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic 30/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     43663/21 12/08/2021 Yevgeniy Valeryanovich GRIGORYEV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic 18/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     43667/21 12/08/2021 Aleksey Gennadyevich YEGOROV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic 06/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     43669/21 12/08/2021 Dmitriy Gennadyevich YEFIMOV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 11,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic 30/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     46558/21 03/09/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich KARPOVETS Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich Khabarovsk Rally to support Sergey Furgal   Khabarovsk   23/01/2021     article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO Fine of RUB 15,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 09/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021 until 25/01/2021. 4,000     46615/21 03/09/2021 Sergey Yevgenyevich KLEPIKOV Kapishnikov Vladimir Sergeyevich Orel Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Orel   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Orel Regional Court 26/04/2021   3,500     46934/22 14/09/2022 Sofya Andreyevna OSADCHAYA     Protest against war in Ukraine   Yekaterinburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 20,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 15/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.02 p.m. until 11.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   47526/22 15/09/2022 Yevgeniy Ivanovich GOROKHOV Maksheyev Kirill Aleksandrovich Nizhniy Novgorod Protest against war in Ukraine   Nizhniy Novgorod   12/06/2022 article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO Fine of RUB 30,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 17/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.25 p.m. until 6.00 p.m. on 12/06/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   47531/22 15/09/2022 Lika Alekseyevna MEDNIK Slavkin Andrey Anatolyevich Murmansk Protest against war in Ukraine   Murmansk   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO Fine of RUB 20,000 Murmansk Regional Court 19/05/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   47816/22 24/09/2022 Nikolay Andreyevich ILNITSKIY     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   26/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 09/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 9.00 p.m. on 26/02/2022 until 12.30 a.m. on 27/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   9551/23 06/02/2023 Denis Aleksandrovich STRELKOV     Rally in defence of Troitski woods   Moscow   12/02/2022 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO Detention for 7 days Moscow City Court 11/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. on 12/02/2022 until 9.00 a.m. on 14/02/2022   5,000   10131/23 11/02/2023 Dmitriy Bulatovich AYVAZYAN     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 11/10/2022   3,500   11863/23 03/02/2023 Nadezhda Vladimirovna KRAYUSHKINA     Protest against was in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 17/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 9.15 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 4.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022   4,000   13772/23 16/02/2023 Marat Khabalovich DOKHOV     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.00 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 2.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022   4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.