CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 5 February 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no.   14129/20 Tatyana Kirillovna SOKOLOVSKAYA and Yekaterina Sergeyevna TUROBOVA against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 11 January 2024, 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     14129/20 27/02/2020 Tatyana Kirillovna SOKOLOVSKAYA 1961   Yekaterina Sergeyevna TUROBOVA 1960   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Ms   Sokolovskaya: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Yarensk 09/06/2019   Ms Turobova: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Yarensk 09/06/2019 article 20.2 § 1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 (Ms   Sokolovskaya)           fine of RUB   10,000 (Ms   Turobova) Arkhangelsk Regional Court 27/08/2019           Arkhangelsk Regional Court 27/08/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in the proceedings against both Ms Sokolovskaya and Ms   Turobova     28235/20* 16/06/2020 Aleksandr Vitalyevich VLASOV 1978   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019     article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 20 hours of community work     fine of RUB 500 Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 18/12/2019   Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 18/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of administrative proceedings against the applicant;   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s two administrative convictions were based, in both sets of proceedings against the applicant;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant complains of being convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 18/12/2019 (Article 19.3 of CAO and Article 20.2.2. § 1)     28238/20* 16/06/2020 Mikhail Yevgenyevich YARYGIN 1976   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019     article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000         fine of RUB 500 Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 18/12/2019     Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 11/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings against the applicant   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s convictions were based (in both sets of proceedings)     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant complains of being convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 11/12/2019 and 18/12/2019 (Article 19.3 of CAO and Article 20.2.2. § 1)     33849/20* 15/06/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich BAZLUTSKIY 1979   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019     article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000     fine of RUB 500 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 07/11/2019   Arkhangelsk Regional Court 10/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings against the applicant,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant complains of being convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Arkhangelsk Regional Court / 07/11/2019 and 10/12/2019 (Article 20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 of CAO)     38404/20* 14/06/2020 Anna Yuryevna SHCHEGORTSOVA 1985   Konstantin Mikhaylovich KORENKOV 1976   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes Mezhyog 27/08/2019     protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO, (concerning Ms   Shchegortsova)       article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO, (concerning Mr   Korenkov)       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr   Korenkov) fine of RUB 5,000 (concerning Ms   Shchegortsova)       fine of RUB 5,000 (concerning Mr   Korenkov)       fine of RUB 500 (concerning Mr   Korenkov) Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 18/12/2019         Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 04/12/2019         Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 11/12/2019 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 applicants’ convictions were based   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings against both applicants     38418/20* 14/06/2020 Dmitriy Viktorovich NOVOZHILOV 1978   Nikita Vyacheslavovich ALEYNIK 1996   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Mr Novozhilov: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019 Mr Novozhilov: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   Mr Aleynik: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   Mr Aleynik: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019 article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO (concerning Mr   Novozhilov)     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO (concerning Mr Novozhilov)         article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO (concerning Mr   Aleynik)       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO (concerning Mr   Aleynik)   fine of RUB   10,000 (concerning Mr   Novozhilov)     fine of RUB 500 (concerning Mr   Novozhilov)       fine of RUB 5,000 (concerning Mr   Aleynik)       fine of RUB 500 (concerning Mr   Aleynik)   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 13/11/2019       Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 13/11/2019         Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 06/11/2019         Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 20/11/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in all sets of the proceedings against both applicants,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicants complain of being convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / (Mr Novozhilov: 13/11/2019 and 13/11/2019 and Mr Aleynik: 06/11/2019 and 20/11/2019 (Article 19.3 of CAO and Article 20.2.2. § 1)     38439/20* 14/06/2020 Olga Aleksandrovna FEDULOVA 1976   Oleg Andreyevich SUKHAREV 1975   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Ms Fedulova: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes Mezhyog 27/08/2019   Mr Sukharev: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019   Mr Sukharev: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019     article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO (concerning Ms   Fedulova)     article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO (concerning Mr Sukharev)       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO (concerning Mr Sukharev)   fine of RUB 5,000 (concerning Ms   Fedulova)     fine of RUB 5,000 (concerning Mr   Sukharev)       fine of RUB 500 (concerning Mr Sukharev)   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 11/12/2019       Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 04/12/2019         Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 11/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of both applicants in all sets of the proceedings;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - Mr Sukharev complains of being convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 04/12/2019 and 11/12/2019 (Article 20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO),   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicants’ convictions were based – in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings     41313/20* 27/08/2020 Oleg Vasilyevich LYZHIN 1990   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2018   protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019 article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO           article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 20 hours of community work           fine of RUB 1,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 27/11/2019         Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 11/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings against the applicant,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s convictions were based,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant complains of being convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 27/11/2019 and 11/12/2019 (Article 20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 of CAO)     49712/20* 22/10/2020 Artem Vasilyevich SHEVELEV 1981   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes   Mezhyog 27/08/2019       article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO               article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 20 hours of community work               fine of RUB 500 Ust Vymskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 15/11/2019 (final decision by the Supreme Court Komi Republic 22/01/2020) and 29/01/2020).   Ust Vymskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 26/11/2019 (final decision by the Supreme Court Komi Republic 29/01/2020).   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings against the applicant;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant complains of being convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Ust Vymskiy District Court the Republic of Komi / 15/11/2019 and 26/11/2019 (Article 20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 of CAO);   Prot. 7 Art. 2 – lack of review by an appeal court - the applicant complains that in contravention of direct rulings of the Russian Supreme Court on legal aid and the position of appeal court in an identical case of another applicant (no. 33849/20 (see above no. 4)) concerning the Shiyes protest, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, in its rulings of, respectively, of 22/01/2020 and 29/01/2020, refused to examine the appeal complaint of the applicant’s lawyer L. on the merits, stating that L. had no right to bring an appeal on the applicant’s behalf because he had not participated in the first-instance court proceedings