57870/21;57961/21;58136/21;58252/21;59678/21;60770/21;61175/21;61237/21;61339/21;61359/21;61531/21;61752/21;61776/21;11758/23;12162/23;12463/23;13472/23;14243/23

THIRD SECTION CASE OF GENERALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 57870/21 and 17 others – see appended list)               JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 8 February 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Generalov 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 18 January 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. They 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); 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 complaints under Article 6 of the Convention alleging various aspects of unfairness 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 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 complaints 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 8 February 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 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]     57870/21 08/11/2021 Vadim Aleksandrovich GENERALOV Veronika Yuryevna Karagodina St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 22/06/2021 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     57961/21 18/11/2021 Irina Andreyevna MAKSIMOVA Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/05/2021 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     58136/21 11/10/2021 Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich KALENKOVICH Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 23/01/2021 until 25/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     58252/21 18/11/2021 Pavel Alekseyevich SHAPOSHNIKOV Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova 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. 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     59678/21 18/11/2021 Vladislav Vladimirovich ISAK Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 25/05/2021 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 and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 02/02/2021 4,000     60770/21 07/12/2021 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich RUDENKO Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Perm   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 10/06/2021 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     61175/21 23/11/2021 Aleksey Valeryevich VINNIKOV Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Velikiy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2021 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 02/02/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000     61237/21 21/11/2021 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich PETRIK Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina Novorossiysk Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Novorossiysk   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention of 5 days Krasnodar Regional Court 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,   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     61339/21 21/11/2021 Lyubov Nikolayevna PARYGINA Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina Novorossiysk Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Anapa   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RU 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 30/06/2021 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 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000   61359/21 01/11/2021 Maksim Yuryevich BANYAYEV Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Strasbourg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000           detention of 5 days Moscow City Court 29/09/2021         Moscow City Court 21/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention: 1) escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report;   2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.20 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 2.30 p.m. on 03/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence 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. 6,000   61531/21 06/12/2021 Kseniya Alekseyevna MAZUROVA Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Velikiy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Velikiy Novgorod   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Novgorod Regional Court 15/06/2021 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 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000   61752/21 21/11/2021 Aleksandr Alekseyevich ANTONOV Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina Novorossiysk Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Novorossiysk   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention of 5 days Krasnodar Regional Court 28/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence 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   61776/21 21/11/2021 Yekaterina Anatolyevna LAKHTIKOVA Roman Yevgenyevich Kachanov Yekaterinburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Ekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Sverdlovsk Regional Court 27/05/2021 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   11758/23 02/03/2023 Lyubov Aleksandrovna PLOSHKINA     Anti-war protest   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 03/11/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000   12162/23 25/02/2023 Yekaterina Andreyevna ZHILINA Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 25/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000   12463/23 03/03/2023 Yekaterina Yevgenyevna ABAYEVA-GILDEBRAND     Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 03/11/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000   13472/23 13/02/2023 Marina Yuryevna LYUBIMOVA     Anti-war protest   Moscow   13/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 13/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 13/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000   14243/23 16/03/2023 Anastasiya Romanovna ANDRYUSHCHENKO       Anti-war protest   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/11/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.