70005/17;80792/17;82703/17;84265/17;2567/18;5012/18;5038/18;5283/18;5324/18;5343/18;11525/18;12445/18;23661/18;24447/18;24744/18;28308/18;28687/18;57050/18;57352/18;58067/18

SECOND SECTION CASE OF MAKLASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 70005/17 and 19 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 March 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Maklashin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,  Frédéric Krenc,  Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 March 2023, 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 and/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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and/or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. 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, 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. 9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion in application nos. 80792/17, 2567/18, 5283/18, 5324/18 and 5343/18, 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”. 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.  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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well‑established case-law (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful administrative arrest, and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.  In view of its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by some of the applicants in relation to other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings. 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, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the right to peaceful assembly and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings, Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the right to peaceful 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); 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. Dismisses the reminder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland  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 per applicant (in euros)[1]     70005/17 07/09/2017 Boris Sergeyevich MAKLASHIN Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   St Petersburg   12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fines of RUB 500 and RUB 10,000, respectively St Petersburg City Court 13/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasoned arrest and detention on 12/06/2017; detention in excess of 3 hours; issue raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court on 13/07/2017 4,000     80792/17 16/11/2017 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ZHEBREV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Anti-corruption manifestation   Nizhniy Novgorod   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 17/05/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrested on 26/03/2017, at 4.10 p.m., brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence, released on the same day at 8 p.m.; raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 17/05/2017   4,000     82703/17 24/11/2017 Yelena Yuryevna SHARAPOVA Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Anti-corruption assembly   Moscow, Pushkinskaya square / Tverskaya street   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 16/06/2017   3,500     84265/17 14/12/2017 Igor Aleksandrovich KARKLIN Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Privokzalnaya Square near the Lenin monument, Vladivostok   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 14/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Primorye Regional Court on 14/06/2017 3,500     2567/18 08/12/2017 Andrey Vladimirovich MINEYEV Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Anti-corruption manifestation   Nizhniy Novgorod   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 15/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; issue examined by the appeal court,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15/06/2017 4,000     5012/18 08/01/2018 Garegin Robertovich ARAKELYAN Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 20/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasoned arrest on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 20/07/2017   4,000     5038/18 08/01/2018 Nadezhda Leonidovna LOZINA Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 12/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasoned arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal 4,000     5283/18 17/01/2018 Anastasiya Borisovna GRYZUNOVA Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 02/08/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; issue examined by the appeal court,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 02/08/2017   4,000     5324/18 08/01/2018 Vilen Vladimirovich SHEVCHENKO Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 16/08/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Unreasonable arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 16/08/2017 4,000   5343/18 08/01/2018 Ilya Yuryevich BARABANOV Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 24/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasonable arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 24/07/2017   4,000   11525/18 17/02/2018 Stanislav Sergeyevich SHISHKIN     Anti-corruption manifestation   Kaliningrad   12/06/2017     Manifestation in support of Navalnyy’s presidential campaign   Kaliningrad   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000             50 hours of community work Kaliningrad Regional Court 17/08/2017         Kaliningrad Regional Court 25/01/2018   4,000   12445/18 03/03/2018 Dmitriy Viktorovich KARPENKO Kholodtsova Inna Vadimovna Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 06/09/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest at the place of manifestation; lengthy detention in a van; then detention in a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 06/09/2017   4,000   23661/18 04/05/2018 Dmitriy Anatolyevich MILLER Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich Sochi Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Krasnaya / Lenin str, Krasnodar   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 35 hours of compulsory work Krasnodar Regional Court 15/11/2017   3,500   24447/18 10/05/2018 Stanislav Anatolyevich RAKITIN Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Anti-government manifestation   Manezhnaya square, Moscow   05/11/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 14 days of administrative detention Moscow City Court 10/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 10/11/2017   5,000   24744/18 08/05/2018 Daniil Sergeyevich SKORBILIN Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Anti-government manifestation   Pushkinskaya square, Moscow   05/11/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 14 days of administrative detention Moscow City Court 08/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 08/11/2017   5,000   28308/18 04/06/2018 Vladislav Aleksandrovich NOVIK Kholodtsova Inna Vadimovna Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/01/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unlawful arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 19/01/2018   4,000   28687/18 04/06/2018 Kseniya Olegovna CHURILOVA Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 04/12/2017 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 12/06/2017. The police officers failed to draw up a record of the applicant’s arrest and detained her for about 3 hours in a police van and another 3 hours at a police station. The total time of her detention exceeded 6 hours; raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 04/12/2017   4,000   57050/18 24/11/2018 Tatyana Stepanovna PRISHANOVA Romanov Pavel Valeryevich Cheboksary Opposition manifestation   Smolensk   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 60 hours of compulsory work Smolensk Regional Court 22/08/2018   3,500   57352/18 16/11/2018 Mariya Andreyevna RABINOVICH Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Political manifestation   Irkutsk   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Irkutsk Regional Court 18/07/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court on 18/07/2018 3,500   58067/18 13/11/2018 Sergey Dmitriyevich VETLUZHSKIKH Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Opposition manifestation   Kazan   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Supreme Court of Tatarstan 04/07/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 04/07/2018 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.