84346/17;1521/18;11944/19;26174/19;10155/20;10188/20;12984/20;21376/20;43065/21;21790/23

FIRST SECTION CASE OF YAKOVLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 84346/17 and 9 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 June 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Yakovlev 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 16 May 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. In some applications 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 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, 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 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.  Some applicants raised further complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraph 10 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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the absence of a prosecuting party in 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 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 6 June 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]     84346/17 06/12/2017 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich YAKOVLEV Vologin Aleksey Borisovich Volsk fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 7 months 26/07/2017 Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region   1,000     1521/18 24/11/2017 Valeriy Leonidovich BELOZERTSEV     fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months 14/11/2017 Solombalskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region   1,000     11944/19 11/02/2019 Yuliya Vladimirovna BELOUSOVA Yevgeniy Valeryevich Kulakov Arkhangelsk fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 7 months 28/11/2018 Primorskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region   1,000     26174/19 06/05/2019 Aleksandr Ivanovich ARTYUKHOV Andrey Pavlovich Mitrofanov Gornyak fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months 21/01/2019 Loktevskiy District Court of the Altay Region   1,000     10155/20 13/02/2020 Anastasiya Romanovna VASILYEVA Anton Alekseyevich Savelyev Domodedovo fine of RUB 15,000 08/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 03/08/2019 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,     4,000     10188/20 03/02/2020 Vladimir Sergeyevich SHEVNIN Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi fine of RUB 10,000 10/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/07/2019 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period   4,000     12984/20 27/02/2020 Oleg Olegovich SUCHKOV Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 06/09/2019 Moscow Coty Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/07/2019 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period   4,000     21376/20 12/04/2020 Artem Alekseyevich GLUKHOV     fine of RUB 10,000 22/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 03/08/2019 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period. 4,000     43065/21 09/08/2021 Andrey Anatolyevich MYAZDRIKOV Viktoriya Maratovna Ilyasova Moscow detention for 7 days 10/02/2021 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 for compiling an offence report   5,000   21790/23 07/09/2021 Kirill Aleksandrovich ZHULIKOV Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi fine of RUB 15,000 09/07/2021 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.