719/19;60673/19;61311/19;6918/21;7286/21;30338/21;54817/21;46461/22

FIRST SECTION CASE OF YERSHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 719/19 and 7 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 Yershov 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. 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.  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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they 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, 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 12.  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 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), 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 under Article 6 of the Convention; 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 and its Protocols 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 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]     719/19 06/12/2018 Aleksandr Maksimovich YERSHOV Aleksey Borisovich Vologin Volsk fine of RUB 30,000,   suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 7 months 29/11/2018  Pugachevskiy District Court of the Saratov Region   1,000     60673/19 01/11/2019 Aleksandr Vasilyevich ABLAKATOV     detention for 8 days,     detention for 8 days 22/09/2019 Cherepovets Town Court of Vologda Region,   22/09/2019 Cherepovets Town Court of Vologda Region     1,000     61311/19 15/11/2019 Sergey Aleksandrovich ROZHKOV Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Klepikov Chelyabinsk       fine of RUB 500,000 21/08/2019 Chelyabinsk Regional Court   1,000     6918/21 10/01/2021 Rada Ravilyevna KARAMOVA Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov Sochi detention for 3 days,   fine of RUB 700 16/07/2020 Krasnodar Regional Court   15/07/2020 Krasnodar Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to the police station on 21/04/2020 for compiling an offence report, detention between 21 and 23/04/2020; (2) escorting to the police station on 11/05/2020 for compiling an offence report and detention between 11 and 12/05/2020,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the administrative detention ordered by the court decision of 12/05/2020 was enforced immediately after the decision of the first-instance court. 4,000     7286/21 29/12/2020 (4 applicants) Rafael Nurgaliyevich MUSTAKIMOV   Vyacheslav Ilyich GIMADI   Ivan Dmitriyevich KONOVALOV   Anastasiya Sergeyevna VASILYEVA Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius fine of RUB 5,000 in respect of each of the applicant 10/07/2020 (in respect of Mustakimov, Gimadi and Konovalov) and 05/08/2020 (in respect of applicant Vasilyeva), Novgorod Regional Court   1,000,  to each of the applicant     30338/21 11/05/2021 Yelena Gennadyevna GRECHISHNIKOVA Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Moscow detention for 5 days 09/02/2021 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period. 4,000     54817/21 29/10/2021 Darya Dmitriyevna LEVKINA Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius detention for 7 days 06/05/2021 Kurgan Regional Court   1,000     46461/22 15/09/2022 Yuliya Anatolyevna LAZAREVA Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Savin Stavropol detention for 6 days 22/06/2022 Stavropol Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.45 p.m. on 07/05/2022 until the morning of 08/05/2022   4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.