56181/18;50465/21;53781/21;36877/22;52437/22

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SLYUSAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 56181/18 and 4 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Slyusarev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  María Elósegui, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Stéphane Pisani, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 July 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Some of the 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 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.  The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8.  In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  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 on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  The 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they 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. Remaining complaints 12.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019 and, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022; and Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers 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 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the absence of the prosecuting party from the administrative-offence proceedings 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 of the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings; 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 12 September 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 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     56181/18 17/11/2018 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich SLYUSAREV   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou fine of RUB 500 05/09/2018, Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 10/05/2018 and 11/05/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial under article 19.3 of CAO, after the offence record had been compiled 4,000     50465/21 21/09/2021 Pavel Ivanovich TARAKANOV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 28/04/2021, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record   4,000     53781/21 22/10/2021 Saveliy Leonidovich ROZHKOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 1,000 28/04/2021, Moscow City Court   1,000     36877/22 01/07/2022 Mariya Gennadyevna PRUTSKOVA Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow fine of RUB 50,000 26/04/2022, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 13/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record in respect of the applicant’s solo demonstration held on the same date   4,000     52437/22 13/10/2022 Artem Andreyevich GOSTYUKHIN     fine of RUB 10,000 14/06/2022 Primorye Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to a police station on 15/04/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence   4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.