49997/21;51121/21;51123/21;51125/21;52346/21;52349/21;53270/21;53288/21;54360/21;55444/21;55450/21;55842/21;55861/21;55956/21;55978/21;56413/21;56651/21;56922/21;56926/21;57395/21;57399/21

THIRD SECTION CASE OF KANYGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 49997/21 and 20 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 21 March 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kanygin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Peeter Roosma, President,  Ioannis Ktistakis,  Andreas Zünd, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 22 February 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 (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 the above paragraphs, 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 21 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma  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]     49997/21 27/09/2021 Yuriy Alekseyevich KANYGIN Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pskov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 Pskov Regional Court 29/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 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     51121/21 01/10/2021 Yekaterina Aleksandrovna SHISHKOVA Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 02/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceeding;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000     51123/21 01/10/2021 Kirill Filippovich BLEKVARD Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 16,000 Moscow City Court 02/04/2021 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     51125/21 01/10/2021 Artur Petrovich ZHDANOV Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 02/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000     52346/21 01/10/2021 Anna Sergeyevna POPKOVA Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kazan   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 07/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     52349/21 01/10/2021 Alevtina Feliksovna SYNTINA Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kazan   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 05/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     3,500     53270/21 06/10/2021 Nikita Igorevich FIRSOV Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Dzerzhinsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 25,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 07/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.30 p.m. until 7.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 4,000     53288/21 07/10/2021 Nikita Alekseyevich MITROFANOV Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 07/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.40 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 1.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021 4,000     54360/21 20/10/2021 Dmitriy Sergeyevich TELESHENKO Dimitriyev Dmitriy Sergeyevich Orenburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Orenburg   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Orenburg Regional Court 20/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     3,500   55444/21 08/11/2021 Stepan Viktorovich BOCHKAREV Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 5 days Moscow City 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 5,000   55450/21 08/11/2021 Polina Alekseyevna KURILO Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   55842/21 27/10/2021 Ioanna Vladimirovna MAYATSKAYA Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich Voronezh Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 28/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   ,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000   55861/21 28/10/2021 Pavel Vasilyevich STEPANOV Kosnyrev Vladislav Vladimirovich Syktyvkar Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Syktyvkar   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Komi Supreme Court 28/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   55956/21 27/10/2021 Asya Fedorovna SHULBAYEVA Pryanishnikov Aleksey Aleksandrovich Tomsk Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Tomsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Tomsk Regional Court 02/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 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 4,000   55978/21 04/11/2021 Aleksey Olegovich YELDASHEV Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kazan   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 05/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report     4,000   56413/21 23/10/2021 Mikhail Andreyevich VORONCHIKHIN Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Sochi   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional 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;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000   56651/21 23/10/2021 Sergey Vyacheslavovich MITROFANOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 Voronezh Regional Court 28/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. until 7.50 p.m. on 31/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   56922/21 29/10/2021 Nikolay Vladimirovich MESHCHANOV Vasilyev Aleksey Alekseyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 (the full text of the decision received several days later)   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   56926/21 28/10/2021 Kristina Vyacheslavovna NUDNER Vasilyev Aleksey Alekseyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000   57395/21 08/11/2021 Roman Igorevich KLIMOV 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 30/07/2021   3,500   57399/21 14/11/2021 Khurshed Akhmedovich AMINOV Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021  Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;    Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.