62815/10;8778/12;31808/12;39123/12;63544/12;72625/12

THIRD SECTION CASE OF SAVELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 62815/10 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 1 December 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Savelov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Darian Pavli, President,  Ioannis Ktistakis,  Andreas Zünd, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2022, 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 on account of their arrest and conviction for an administrative offence following their participation in public demonstrations. 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them on account of their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence in view of their participation in public demonstrations. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 11 “1.  Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly ... 2.  No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ...” 7.  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). 8.  In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, 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. 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 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 interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly was not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  In applications nos. 8778/12 and 72625/12, 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 Navalnyy and Yashin (cited above, §§ 82-85 and §§ 91-98); Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016); and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 486‑92, 7 February 2017). 12.  Finally, in application no. 39123/12 the applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 11 that he had been discriminated against on account of his sexual orientation. Having regard to its findings above, the Court finds these complaints admissible but does not consider it necessary to continue a separate examination of their merits (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 100, ECHR 2006‑XI). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, most recently, Fedotova v. Russia [Committee], no. 2064/10, § 16, 1 March 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.  The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the public assembly; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) by the applicants in applications nos. 8778/12 and 72625/12; Holds that there is no need to examine the merits of the complaint raised in application no. 39123/12 under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 11; 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 1 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli  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]     62815/10 14/10/2010 Igor Gennadyevich SAVELOV Gorlov Stanislav Vladimirovich Moscow Picket against the demolition of residential buildings   Moscow, Tverskaya square   09/02/2010 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 500 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow 15/04/2010   3,000     8778/12 29/12/2011 Petr Yuryevich VERZILOV Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to State Duma   Moscow, Teatralnyy Proyezd   05/12/2011 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Tverskoy District Court of Moscow 09/12/2011 Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to examine the defence witnesses (who were present during the applicant’s arrest), the only evidence are police written statements and escorting records,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 05/12/2011 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; the record could have been drawn up on the spot; detention for more than 3 hours 3,900     31808/12 23/04/2012 Ruslan Abdulganiyevich RASULOV     Anti-corruption rally   Makhachkala   03/10/2011 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 2 days Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic 08/02/2012   3,000     39123/12 08/06/2012 Matvey Andreyevich PETUKHOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Demonstration against the "propaganda of homosexuality" law   Moscow, Chistoprudnyy Boulevard   01/10/2011 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 500 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow 12/12/2011   3,000     63544/12 29/09/2012 Mikhail Leontyevich UDIMOV Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow Political manifestation   Moscow, Voskresenskiye Gates   01/04/2012 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 500 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow 03/07/2012   3,000     72625/12 23/10/2012 Kirill Nikolayevich YERMOLAYEV Tseytlina Olga Pavlovna St Petersburg Protest against Duma Elections’ Results   Gostinyy Dvor St Petersburg   07/12/2011 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg 31/05/2012 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings 3,900   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.