44131/18;46935/21;47391/21;49531/21;49598/21;51076/21;52247/21;52263/21;54907/21;60617/21;61779/21;3320/22;33740/22

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF GOLIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 44131/18 and 12 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 Golikov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  María Elósegui, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Stephane Pisani, 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. 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 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; 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 manifestations; 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 further raised additional complaints under the provisions of the Convention concerning other aspects of the administrative‑offence proceedings and effects of the administrative convictions. 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 raised by the applicants under the Convention; Holds that there has been 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 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]     44131/18 29/08/2018 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich GOLIKOV Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna   Ani Mesropovna Agagyulyan   Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 03/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on (1) 12/06/2017, between 2.25 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. and (2) between 3.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 and 1.30 a.m. on 01/02/2021,   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) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO for having participated in unauthorised public event on 12/06/2017 in Moscow and for having worn a tee-shirt with a slogan offensive to the President of the Russian Federation, penalty of RUB 15,000, final decision by the Moscow City Court on 06/03/2018.           4,000     46935/21 01/09/2021 Maksim Yevgenyevich KLIMOV Tkachenko Nikita Nikolayevich Belgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Belgorod 23/01/2021     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Belgorod 21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention of 9 days           detention for 25 days Belgorod Regional Court 01/03/2021       Belgorod Regional Court 27/04/2021   5,000     47391/21 16/09/2021 Ignatiy Vitalyevich KUPTSOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Tomsk 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Tomsk Regional Court 18/03/2021 Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO for having published on his page "VKontakte" calls for participation in a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Tomsk, penalty detention for 25 days, final decision by the Tomsk Regional Court on 04/05/2021,   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. 5,000     49531/21 16/09/2021 Angelina Nikolayevna YUGANOVA Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 200,000 Moscow City Court 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.       3,500     49598/21 21/09/2021 Vsevolod Aleksandrovich ZAYTSEV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow 31/01/2021     Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow 21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000         detention for 20 days Moscow City Court 23/08/2021         Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 and 25/04/2021 for compiling an offence report.   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     51076/21 01/10/2021 Natalya Gennadyevna CHEKHLENKO     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Blagoveshchensk 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Amur Regional Court 01/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     52247/21 01/10/2021 Ilya Valeryevich AKSENOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 02/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021, between 3.30 p.m. and 00.00,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     52263/21 11/10/2021 Lev Markovich SHLOSBERG Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pskov 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Pskov Regional Court 12/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021 (several 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     54907/21 12/10/2021 Anastasiya Alekseyevna SHVAREVA Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Syktyvkar 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 23/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   60617/21 16/11/2021 Olga Nikolayevna VOLKOVA Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna Novorossiysk Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Anapa 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 17/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   61779/21 03/12/2021 Sergey Sergeyevich OSTRIKOV Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich Voronezh Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh 23/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000       fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 30/08/2021     Voronezh Regional Court 04/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on (1) 23/01/2021 between 4.40 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. and (2) on 31/01/2021 between 12.40 p.m. and 4.15 p.m.,   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   3320/22 22/12/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KNYAZEV Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich Voronezh Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh 31/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh 21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000       fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 23/06/2021     Voronezh Regional Court 19/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on (1) 31/01/2021, between 2.00 p.m. and 9.50 p.m. and (2) 21/04/2021, between 7.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m.,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings. 4,000   33740/22 04/06/2022 Yuliya Vyacheslavovna KUMIROVA Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 21/04/2021   Anti-war rally   Moscow 02/03/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000       detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 17/12/2021       Moscow City Court 11/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report between 7.30 p.m. on 02/03/2022 and 7.30 p.m. on 04/03/2022,   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. 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.