CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s3A97705A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sFF0F7D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:4pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF PROSKURINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 50811/18 and 19 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 April 2023       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Proskurina and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 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 participants of public assemblies. 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as 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, and having due regard to the issue of compliance with the six-month period under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID‑related extension of the period in question), 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.     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. 12.     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 its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-23, 10 April 2018, Kalyapin v. Russia , no. 6095/09, § 76, 23   July 2019, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public events; and Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, related to the 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 13.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings and alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     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; Declares the complaints concerning the dispersal of the public assembly 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 deal separately with the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these complaints 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); 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 April 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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]     50811/18 10/10/2018 Olga Petrovna PROSKURINA 1996 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition manifestation   Voronezh   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 25/06/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     10634/20 17/02/2020 Grigoriy Andreyevich ALIKHANOV 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of legal grounds for the applicant’s arrest and detention for more than 9   hours on 12/06/2019;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings   4,000     10700/20 17/02/2020 Pavel Sergeyevich POTEMKIN 1976 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 08/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of legal grounds for arrest and detention on 12/06/2019;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     10757/20 22/02/2020 Pavel Dmitriyevich LUBYANSKIY 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 26/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 12/06/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     13757/20 29/02/2020 Andrey Nikolayevich BYCHKOV 1967 Chervonnyy Grigoriy Sergeyevich Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest on 12/06/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and detention in excess of 3 hours;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     13965/20 28/02/2020 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich YAKOVLEV 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of any legal grounds for the applicant’s arrest and escorting to the police station on 12/06/2019;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     14194/20 02/03/2020 Pavel Ilyich KRASOVITSKIY 1994     Artur Vladimirovich OGANESOV 1998   Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019     Article 20.2 § 6.1                       fine of RUB 10,000 to each of the applicants           Moscow City Court 22/10/2019           Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Unlawful (unjustified) arrest on 12/06/2019 (both applicants) and detention in excess of 3 hours (see Frumkin, cited above, §§ 147-52);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings against both applicants 4,000     14713/20 10/03/2020 Leonid Aronovich KREMENETSKIY 1957 Goncharova Vera Velimirovna Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 10/10/2019 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 12/06/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings; 4,000     14900/20 05/03/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NEZNAKHIN 1975     Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 06/09/2019   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 12/06/2019 for the 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 tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   14932/20 06/03/2020 Aleksandr Viktorovich SHMYROV 1986 Kostanova Anastasiya Yuryevna Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 06/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unlawful (unjustified) arrest on 12/06/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   15380/20 12/03/2020 Yevgeniy Voldemarovich BERG 1990 Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 06/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   3,500   15388/20 12/03/2020 Mikhail Borisovich KAZINIK 1979 Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   18239/20 19/03/2020 Ivan Kirillovich PETROVSKIY 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of   RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 10/10/2019 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 12/06/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   18240/20 19/03/2020 Anton Aleksandrovich MOCHALIN 1978 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of compulsory labour Moscow City Court 16/09/2019 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 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   18241/20 19/03/2020 Sergey Valeryevich KAPRANOV 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 18,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2019 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 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   19622/20 17/03/2020 Gleb Dmitriyevich VAZHDAYEV 1995 Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich Moscow Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000   Moscow City Court 18/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   20023/20 23/03/2020 Yuliya Valeryevna PRIKHODKO 1974 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Tverskaya str., Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 24/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unlawful (unjustified) arrest on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   20335/20 27/03/2020 Yevgeniy Igorevich NYNNIK 1998 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov   Rozhdestvenskiy boulevard, Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 28/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unlawful (unjustified) arrest on 12/06/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   25386/20 12/05/2020 Arseniy Konstantinovich MARKIN 2000     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 14/11/2019   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unlawful detention on 03/08/2019, detention in excess of 3 hours;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   44159/20 17/09/2020 Ilya Igorevich MOZYRSKIY 1989 Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections in Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 18/03/2020 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 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.