CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } Published on 27 November 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   20140/21 Yaroslav Aleksandrovich SMOLEV against Russia and 13 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 November 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 11 of the Convention relating to disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see 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).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS 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     20140/21* 23/03/2021 Yaroslav Aleksandrovich SMOLEV 1999     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of S.   Furgal   Khabarovsk   28/11/2020 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 12/01/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) arrest and detention between 28/11/2020 and 30/11/2020 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been complied, and (ii) on 06/03/2022 and on 07/04/2022, each time the applicant was escorted to a police station and detained there for the sole purpose of compiling an offence record (under articles 20.6.1 § 1 of the CAO and 20.3.3 of the CAO, respectively); no written record of the administrative escorting,   Art. 6 (1) - unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings - the courts’ refusal to order a linguistics expert examination of the applicant’s poster and slogans (the second set of proceedings, the final judgment of 01/06/2022 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court),   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - Khabarovsk, 06/03/2022, Solo demonstration against the war in Ukraine - arrest and conviction under article 20.3.3 § 1of CAO, fine of RUB 30,000, final judgment of 01/06/2022 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court     37509/21* 10/07/2021 Oleg Nikolayevich KOVALEV 1975   Milita Petrovna Borodina Magnitogorsk Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Magnitogorsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 24/03/2021 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 administrative offence proceedings (final judgments of 24/03/2021 and 24/11/2021),   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (both sets of administrative offence proceedings, final judgments of 24/03/2021 and 24/11/2021) and prosecution witness R. (the first set of proceedings, final judgment of 24/03/2021),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - arrest, conviction under article 20.2-2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 for publishing on 06/09/2021 a call for participation in a Left Front rally (scheduled for 12/09/2021) to a vKontakte page, final judgment of 24/11/2021 by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019).     40129/21* 28/07/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich KOZLOV 1994     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Ulyanovsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 8 days Ulyanovsk Regional Court 03/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of the appeal under the CAO     43252/21* 17/08/2021 Marina Lvovna SAVVATEYEVA 1961       Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Chita   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 15/03/2021 Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Chita, 31/01/2021, solo demonstration in support of A. Navalnyy - conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, community service of 20 hours - final judgment of 09/03/2021 by the Zabaikalskiy Regional Court     45565/21* 25/08/2021 Kirill Vladislavovich ALEKHIN 1982   Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Kazan   31/01/2021   Protest against the war in Ukraine   Kazan   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000             administrative detention of 10 days Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 14/04/2021         Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 03/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) from 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled; and (ii) from 24/02/2022 to 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - the applicant was absent from the appeal hearing of 03/03/2022 that took place while he was still in administrative detention, despite his request to attend; the prosecutor was present and the applicant was not represented (a lawyer had lodged the statement of appeal; the appellate court found that the he had failed to demonstrate that he had been authorised to represent the applicant during the appeal hearing),   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based in the second set of proceedings (final judgment of 03/03/2022)   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - alternatively to Article 11 issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Tsukanov and Torchinskiy v. Russia [Committee], nos.35000/13 and 35010/13, §§ 48-50, 17 April 2018; and Muchnik and Mordovin v. Russia [Committee], nos. 23814/15 and 2707/16, §§ 47-52, 12 February 2019)- - solo demonstration of 24/02/2022, Kazan, Protest against the war in Ukraine - arrest, conviction under Article 20.2-8, administrative detention of 10 days, final judgment of 03/03/2022 by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan,   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 (the second set of proceedings) was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     54269/21* 13/10/2021 Mikhail Yuryevich GEORGI 1972     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Picket in support of A.   Navalnyy   Taganrog   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Rostov Regional Court 13/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     1438/22* 21/12/2021 Alan Aleksandrovich LEONGARD 1995   Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Event in support of the LGBT community (hanging LGBTQ flags on the administrative buildings)   Moscow   07/10/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 16/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 13/10/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence in respect of the event of 07/10/2020     16587/22* 08/03/2022 Andrey Mikhaylovich GOLOSOV 1987   Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zubarev Vladivostok Rally against the pension reform   Vladivostok   15/09/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court (proceedings discontinued for the lack of corpus delicti) 16/01/2019   The applicant brought compensation proceedings; the courts awarded him RUB 10,000 (EUR 115) for unlawful administrative prosecution and rejected the remainder of his claim for compensation, final judgment: 08/09/2021, Supreme Court of Russia Art. 5(1) – unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/09/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - by the final judgment of 08/09/2021 the Supreme Court of Russia rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation for unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station on 15/09/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence     38018/22* 06/07/2022 Mikhail Aleksandrovich SALOSIN 1990   Rushan Rafisovich Kabirov Kazan Rally against the war in Ukraine   Kazan   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 11/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence   38113/22 02/06/2022 Yaroslav Vladimirovich YARTSEV 2001   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 15/12/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 23/01/2021 and 24/01/2021 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based   42451/22 18/08/2022 Dmitriy Vladimirovich BLIZNETSOV 1966   Sergey Sergeyevich Kulikov Nizhniy Novgorod Rally against the war in Ukraine   Nizhniy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 27/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station between 06/03/2022 and 07/03/2022 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - unfair criminal proceedings - various deficiencies of the administrative offence proceedings (no possibility to adduce evidence),   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based.   51318/22* 21/10/2022 Taryana Nikolayevna BRYATKOVA 1958   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Boris Nemtsov memorial rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/02/2022 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,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based   51324/22 20/10/2022 Mariya Alekseyevna KORCHAGINA 1963       Boris Nemtsov memorial rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/02/2022 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,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based   51338/22 21/10/2022 Maina Anatolyevna POTOLOVA 1973   Nataliya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Rally against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   01/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 01/03/2022 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,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based