CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 septembre 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s7368EE06 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 RYBAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 143/18 and 12 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rybakov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 July 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 against solo demonstrators. They 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 10 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article   10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article   11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, §   91, 26 April 2016). 8.     In the leading case of Novikova and Others (cited above, §§   112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis , Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§   432-42, 7 February 2017, and Glukhin v.   Russia , no.   11519/20, §§   49-57, 4 July 2023). 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   10 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 of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO); Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; Frumkin v.   Russia , no. 74568/12, 5   January 2016, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no.   76204/11, 4 December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no.   21613/07, 3 October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and 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. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 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, mutatis mutandis , Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), 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   10 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; 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 12 September 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 10 § 1 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location Date Purpose of the demonstration Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Name of the court Date   Other relevant information Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     143/18 29/11/2017 Vyacheslav Borisovich RYBAKOV 1966   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk (i) Cheboksary 13/04/2017 Support of Ye. Blinova         (ii) Cheboksary 16/04/2017 Support of V. Maltsev   (i) article 20.2 §   5 of CAO community service of 40   hours       (ii), article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20, 000 (ii) Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 11/07/2017       (ii) Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 30/05/2017   ban on public events at certain locations - in the vicinity of a district court building (13/04/2017) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - all sets of proceedings,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – (i) Cheboksary, 07/10/2017, opposition rally - arrest, conviction under article 20.2   §   8 of the CAO, administrative detention of 15 days; final judgment of 10/11/2017 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, and (ii) Cheboksary, 29/10/2017, opposition rally (a stroll) - arrest, conviction under article 20.2   §   8 of the CAO, community service of 190 hours; final judgment of 21/12/2017 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 05/11/2017 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of the appeal under the CAO 5,000     18395/18 02/04/2018 Konstantin Aleksandrovich GUDIMOV 1952   Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi (i) Sochi 07/10/2017   Support of A.   Navalnyy   (the applicant was riding a bicycle with a balloon attached to it, bearing the logo of A. Navalnyy’s presidential campaign)       (ii) Sochi 23/01/2021   Support of A.   Navalnyy   (the applicant was walking along the streets holding a poster in support of A. Navalnyy and taking pictures with passers-by). (i) article 20.2 §   8 of CAO administrative detention of 12   days                     (ii) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 10 days (i) 02/11/2017, Krasnodar Regional Court                     (ii) 14/04/2021, Krasnodar Regional Court (i) the authorities considered the applicant’s bicycle ride to constitute picketing               (ii) the authorities considered the applicant’s stroll of 23/01/2021 to amount to organisation and holding a series of solo pickets Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) between 18/09/2020 and 19/09/2020 and (ii) between 27/01/2021 and 28/01/2021, each time as administrative suspect, initially for drawing up an offence report and then pending trial, after the offence report was compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings – two sets of proceedings, final judgments of 02/11/2017 and 14/04/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - arrest, conviction under article   20.2   §   2 of the CAO, administrative detention of 10 days for publishing on 16/09/2020 a call for participation in an opposition event (scheduled for 19 and 20/09/2020) to the applicant’s vkontakte page, final judgment of 29/10/2020 by the Krasnodar Regional Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant (i) on 24/10/2017, (ii) on 19/09/2020 and (iii) 28/01/2021 were each time executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 6,000     18408/18 02/04/2018 Dmitriy Petrovich TITKOV 1976   Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi (i) Sochi 07/10/2017 Support of A.   Navalnyy       (ii) Sochi 27/03/2018   Solo demonstration for fair elections (i) article 20.1 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB 500       (ii) article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 9 days (i) Krasnodar Regional Court 20/02/2018       (ii) Krasnodar Regional Court 29/05/2018 distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto (second set of proceedings) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 02/04/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     24890/18 11/05/2018 Leonid Sergeyevich YARYGIN 1989   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Tambov 08/05/2018 Support of an arrested coordinator of the local A.   Navalnyy’s headquarters article 20.1 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Tambov Regional Court 04/06/2018   (complaint lodged on 10/10/2018)   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 08/05/2018 to 09/05/2018, as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - arrest, conviction under article 20.2 §   8 of the CAO, administrative detention of 25 days for publishing on 28/10/2017 a call for participation in an opposition event (scheduled for 29/10/2017) to the applicant’s vkontakte page, final judgment of 11/11/2017 by the Tambov Regional Court 5,000     15824/19 10/03/2019 Nikolay Vitalyevich REKUBRATSKIY 1958   Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg (i) Moscow 26/05/2018 Support of O.   Sentsov         (ii) Moscow 06/09/2021 Protest against persecution of Crimean Tatars (i) article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000       (ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 (i) Moscow City Court 10/09/2018         (ii) Moscow City Court 11/05/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 26/05/2018 and (ii) on 06/09/2021, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings 4,000     19708/19 20/03/2019 Aleksandr Vitalyevich REKUBRATSKIY 1958   Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow (i) Moscow 01/07/2018 Support of O.Sentsov and for exchange of prisoners between Ukraine and Russia     (ii) Moscow 06/09/2021 Protest against persecution of Crimean Tatars (i) article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           (ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 (i) Moscow City Court 20/09/2018             (ii) Moscow City Court 11/05/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 01/07/2018 and (ii) on 06/09/2021, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings 4,000     41666/19 23/07/2019 Gulnaz Ilgizovna RAVILOVA 1999   Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna Kazan Kazan, 12/12/2018, Protest against the authorities’ failure to respect the Constitution   (the applicant used a cardboard mock-up installation) article 20.2 § 2 of CAO community service of 30   hours Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 24/04/2019 conviction on account of staging a solo demonstration with recourse to a “quickly (de)assembled object” (see Glukhin v.   Russia , no.   11519/20, §§   49-57, 4   July 2023) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention- arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 14/02/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence in respect of the event of 12/12/2018,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000     47892/21 14/08/2021 Ivan Ivanovich LUZIN 2000   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Kaliningrad 21/08/2020 Support of A.   Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 16/02/2021   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings   3,500     48046/21 09/09/2021 Anna Gennadiyevna NEFEDOVA 1976   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow (i) Tambov 10/08/2020 Solo demonstration for fair elections to the Tambov Regional Duma       (ii) Tambov 20/08/2020 Support of A.   Navalnyy (i) article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000           (ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 (i) Tambov Regional Court 10/03/2021           (ii) Tambov Regional Court 10/03/2021   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - all sets of proceedings,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 on account of participation in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy, 23/01/2021, Tambov; final judgment of 07/04/2021 by the Tambov Regional Court 4,000   55439/21 24/10/2021 Igor Vladimirovich SERKOV 1987   Bogdashkin Ilya Igorevich Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg 31/01/2021   Support of A. Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   community service of 30   hours Sverdlovsk Regional Court 26/05/2021   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings           3,500   3155/22 03/12/2021 Anastasiya Yulyevna MIKHAYLOVA 1999   Magomedova Luiza Magomedovna St Petersburg St Petersburg 02/05/2021 Street exhibition by artist K. in support of political prisoners   (the applicant submits that she was merely standing nearby) article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of   10   days St Petersburg City Court 10/06/2021   distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto (conviction on account of a failure to respect a 50m. distance with artist K.) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 02/05/2021 and 04/05/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, and after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 04/05/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   38632/22 14/07/2022 Rustam Voitzhonovich MADUMAROV 1998       St Petersburg 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days St Petersburg City Court 31/03/2022 distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 25/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   44825/22 06/09/2022 Svetlana Sergeyevna KARPENKO 1992       Rostov-on-Don 30/04/2022 Anti-war protest article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 15   days Rostov Regional Court 06/05/2022   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01/05/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.