64899/14;50264/17;10450/21;20410/21;36425/21;40155/21;40472/21;43784/21;44321/21;47430/21;47449/21;48963/21;49349/21;54560/21;56282/21;8359/22;12127/22;13422/22;41682/22;10035/23;11763/23;13214/23;31231/23;31282/23;31283/23

FIRST SECTION CASE OF TERESHONKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 64899/14 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tereshonkov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Lətif Hüseynov, President,  Ivana Jelić,  Erik Wennerström, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 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); Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in the proceedings under the CAO, in order to identify, locate and arrest the applicant; 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 demonstrations; 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 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 paragraphs 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15.  The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 16.  It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.  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, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Holds that these applications 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 4 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov  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, costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     64899/14 18/09/2014;                 50264/17 28/06/2017   Semen Alekseyevich TERESHONKOV                 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou           Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow Protest against "annexation of Crimea"   Syktyvkar   16/03/2014             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                         fine of RUB 10,000                         Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 14/05/2014                 Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - On 19/12/2016 the Syktyvkar Town Court found him guilty under Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO for failure to obey the lawful order of police officers and sentenced to 3-day’ detention. On 28/12/2016 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the judgment. The sentence of administrative detention for three days imposed on the applicant on 19/12/2016 under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on 28/12/2016). 5,000         10450/21 18/01/2021 Yuriy Aleksandrovich BOLSHOV Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally to support S. Furgal   Khabarovsk   25/07/2020 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 7 days Primorye Regional Court 30/07/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 26/07/2020;   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     20410/21 16/03/2021 Natalya Petrovna BARANOVA Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Political rally   Samara   21/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Samara Regional Court 17/09/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     36425/21 30/06/2021;       and     54560/21 15/10/2021 Sven Karlovich NORDIN Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow           Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kaliningrad   31/01/2021     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kaliningrad   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 Kaliningrad Regional Court 25/05/2021         Kaliningrad Regional Court 22/06/2021     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021 and 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which ended with the final decision taken on 25/05/2021. 4,000     40155/21 21/07/2021 Pavel Vasilyevich KOROLKOV Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO detention for 10 days             fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 12/04/2021           Moscow City Court 15/11/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report (1) from 4.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021, when the applicant was taken to the court; (2) from 06/03/2022 until 07/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which ended with the final decision taken on 12/04/2021;   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     40472/21 04/07/2021 Nikita Vitalyevich YAKOVLEV Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 10/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     43784/21 26/08/2021 Maksim Dmitriyevich STENKIN Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021       Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   21/04/2021     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   04/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   fine of RUB 20,000               fine of RUB 10,000             detention for 15 days Moscow City Court 11/05/2021             Moscow City Court 27/10/2021           Moscow City Court 11/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.23 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 1.30 a.m. on 01/02/2021; (2) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021; (3) escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7 p.m. on 04/03/2022 until 05/03/2022, when the applicant was taken to the court from the police station;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants of public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant in the rally on 21/04/2021 and his subsequent conviction. 5,000     44321/21 09/08/2021 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich YELISEYEV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO detention for 15 days             fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 09/02/2021           Moscow City Court 09/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 6 p.m. on 01/02/2021; (2) escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all 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. 5,000     47430/21 12/09/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich SKRIPNIK Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 12/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 6.30 p.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. 4,000   47449/21 08/09/2021 Aleksandr Nikolayevich RYABCHUK Pryanishnikov Aleksey Aleksandrovich Tomsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Rostov-on-Don   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 5 days Rostov Regional Court 10/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000   48963/21 22/09/2021 Veronika Yuryevna NIKULSHINA Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Rally in support of LGBTI community   Moscow   07/10/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 08/10/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   49349/21 22/09/2021 Aleksey Olegovich VASILYEV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Omsk   31/01/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Omsk Regional Court 06/04/2021 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   56282/21 25/10/2021 Konstantin Viktorovich KISELEV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Opposition rally   Moscow   13/03/2021 article 20.33 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow 06/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 10.30 a.m. until 3.30 p.m. on 13/03/2021.     4,000   8359/22 25/01/2022 Yegor Sergeyevich LEVIN Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Barnaul   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Altay Regional Court 11/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.10 p.m. until 11.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   12127/22 01/02/2022 Yuliya Mikhaylovna DOLZHENKO Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Belgorod   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Belgorod Regional Court 02/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 12.45 a.m. on 22/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   13422/22 10/02/2022 Igor Viktorovich SHPEKHT Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Krasnoyarsk   31/01/2021         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 12/08/2021   3,500   41682/22 09/08/2022 Lyubov Sergeyevna SAMYLOVA Magomedova Luiza Magomedovna St Petersburg Protest against war in Ukraine   St Petersburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 St Petersburg City Court 19/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 25/02/2022 when the applicant was taken to the court from the police station;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   10035/23 13/02/2023 Arina Sergeyevna ZEYKAN     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   28/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 13/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.35 p.m. on 28/02/2022 until 4 p.m. on 01/03/2022. 4,000   11763/23 20/02/2023 Valentina Petrovna YASHINA     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 31/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.40 p.m. until 7 p.m. on 06/03/2022. 4,000   13214/23 17/03/2023 Darya Dmitriyevna TEREKHOVA     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 21/11/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 7.30 p.m. on 28/02/2022. 4,000   31231/23 21/07/2023 Arshak Arturovich MAKICHYAN     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   25/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 21/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1 p.m. until 6.30 p.m. on 25/02/2022. 4,000   31282/23 06/07/2023 Tamara Petrovna SOLODOVNIKOVA     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 13/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.10 p.m. until 7 p.m. on 06/03/2022.   4,000   31283/23 24/07/2023 Yekaterina Valentinovna PANKOVA     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 27/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.25 p.m. until 8.38 p.m. on 06/03/2022. 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.