CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 16 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; 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 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF STEPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 16539/23 and 15 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 May 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stepanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 April 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, 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 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; 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 16 May 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   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 and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     16539/23 01/04/2023 Vadim Denisovich STEPANOV 1997 Filatchev Oleg Vladimirovich Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow 06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 01/12/2022   3,500     16540/23 03/04/2023 Tatyana Borisovna KOZLOVA 1974       Anti-war protest   Moscow 27/02/2022   Anti-war protest   Moscow 13/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000       fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 09/12/2022       Moscow City Court 09/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/02/2022 and on 13/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     16797/23 12/04/2023 Makar Sergeyevich VORFOLOMEYEV 1996     Anti-war protest   Moscow 24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 13/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station from 24/02/2022 to 25/02/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     16856/23 03/04/2023 Irina Alekseyevna SKVORTSOVA 1967     Anti-war protest   Moscow 06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 07/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     17358/23 04/04/2023 Anastasiya Nikolayevna KRASNITSKAYA 1998     Anti-war protest   Moscow 27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 05/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station from 27/02/2022 to 28/02/2022 for compiling an offence report. 4,000     17393/23 11/04/2023 Anton Ivanovich LENOK 1988 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Anti-war protest   Moscow 02/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 03/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     17628/23 06/04/2023 Nelya Anatolyevna BRAYNINA 1948     Anti-war protest   Moscow 06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 07/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     18183/23 05/04/2023 Vladlena Vladimirovna REBRAKOVA 1994     Anti-war protest   Moscow 27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 07/12/2022   3,500     18487/23 19/04/2023 Vladimir Aleksandrovich BOLOBOLOV 1987     Anti-war protest   Moscow 24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000   21410/23 02/02/2023 Yuliya Nikolayevna DMITRIYEVA 1988 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   Moscow 06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 03/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 4,000   21769/23 06/04/2023 Mariya Dmitriyevna ZHITINA 1997     Anti-war protest   Moscow 07/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 07/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 07/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000   23165/23 28/05/2023 Margarita Alekseyevna SOLOMATINA 2022     Anti-war protest   Moscow 24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 31/01/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station from 24/02/2022 to 25/02/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000   23310/23 26/05/2023 Ratibor Igorevich PODLESNYY 2003 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Anti-war protest   Moscow 06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 17/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000   23312/23 26/05/2023 Anna Anatolyevna ZOBOVA 1991 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Anti-war protest   Moscow 13/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 15/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.00 p.m. until 9.00 p.m. on 13/03/2022 4,000   30860/23 20/07/2023 Tatyana Vyacheslavovna KRUPINA 1994     Anti-war protest   Moscow 02/04/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 23/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/04/2022 for compiling an offence report. 4,000   31281/23 14/07/2023 Aleksey Palovich ZHILTSOV 2002     Anti-war protest   Moscow 06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 15/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.