CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sBCF36575 { height:36.95pt } .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 } .sE6400776 { height:50.4pt } .s2B95644D { height:7.15pt } Published on 11 March 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   14379/18 Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 15 February 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     14379/18* 21/02/2018 Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY 1976 Olga Olegovna Mikhaylova Moscow Opposition rally   Moscow   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO;   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 30 days;   detention for 15 days Moscow City Court 23/05/2018   Moscow City Court 23/05/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report (1) from 9.50 a.m. until 8.55 p.m. on 29/09/2017; (2) from 2.30 p.m. until 11.45   p.m. on 05/05/2018 (see 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);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016);   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 conviction was based, in the proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO – conviction for making calls, final decision taken on 06/10/2017 (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§   150-59, 18 December 2018);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – political rally on 29/09/2017 in Nizhniy Novgorod, Article 20.2 §   8 of CAO (repeated breach of rules on public events by calling on participation in the unauthorised rally), detention for 20 days, final decision by the Moscow City Court on 06/10/2017 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos.   60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019);   Art. 11 (2) -interference with freedom of assembly - the applicant’s arrest and detention on 29/09/2017 barred him from travelling to Nizhniy Novgorod and participating in the rally, which was intended to inform people about his activities (see Kasparov v. Russia , no. 53659/07, §§ 65-69, 11 October 2016).     20919/18* 06/04/2018 Dmitriy Vladimirovich KALINYCHEV 1980 Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev Nizhniy Novgorod Political rally   Nizhniy Novgorod   29/09/2017         Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   21/04/2021     Political rally   Nizhniy Novgorod   13/02/2022     Anti-war protest   Nizhniy Novgorod   23/02/2022 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 12 days     fine of RUB   20,000       fine of RUB   10,000             detention for 7   days             detention for 14 days           detention for 14 days Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 06/10/2017   Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 24/01/2018     Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 12/05/2021           Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 17/03/2022           Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 30/03/2022         Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 17/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021, 21/04/2021, 08/05/2022; (2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 6.15 p.m. on 23/02/2022 until 4 p.m. on 24/02/2022 (see Butkevich , Tsvetkova and Others , and Korneyeva , cited above);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings, including the proceedings under Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (final decision taken on 20/07/2022 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court) (see Karelin , cited above);   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 conviction was based, in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings, including the proceedings under Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (final decision taken on 20/07/2022 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court), and with the exception of the proceedings which ended with final decisions taken on 30/03/2022 and 24/08/2022 (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above);   Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a person who had staged a solo demonstration with the anti-war banner and his subsequent conviction under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO (final decision taken on 12/01/2023, complaint raised on appeal) (see Glukhin v.   Russia , no. 11519/20, §§ 78-91, 4 July 2023);   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - (1) solo demonstration on 01/06/2018, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, 50 hours of community work, final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 10/10/2018 (date of introduction 08/04/2019); (2) solo demonstration on 03/06/2018, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, 70 hours of community work, final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 10/10/2018 (date of introduction 08/04/2019); (3) solo demonstration on 18/06/2018, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, detention for 25   days, final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 29/06/2018 (date of introduction 26/12/2018) (see Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-215, 26 April 2016);   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – (1) on 07/06/2022 the applicant was convicted under article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO (discrediting Russian Armed Forces by distributing leaflets "Free Mariupol" on 08/05/2022), fined RUB   40,000, final decision taken by Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 24/08/2022; (2) on 28/06/2022 the applicant was convicted under article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO (discrediting Russian Armed Forces by staging a solo demonstration with a banner against the war in Ukraine on 02/04/2022), fined RUB 30,000, final decision taken by Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 12/01/2023 (see, mutatis mutandis , Sürek v.Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §   58, ECHR 1999-IV, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia , no.   38004/12, §§ 197-201, 17 July 2018).     35410/18* 12/07/2018 Leonid Mikhaylovich VOLKOV 1980     Voters’ strike   Moscow   28/01/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 30 days Moscow City Court 28/02/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 22/02/2018; (2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 6.10 a.m. on 21/05/2019 until 2 p.m. on 22/05/2019; (3) escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6.10 a.m. until 10.15 a.m. on 10/06/2019 (see Butkevich , Tsvetkova and Others , and Korneyeva , cited above);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above);   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 conviction was based in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – (1) rally against retirement age hike on 09/09/2018 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 4 of CAO, detention for 20 days, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 29/05/2019; (2) rally against retirement age hike on 09/09/2018 in St Petersburg, Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO, detention for 15 days, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 17/06/2019 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , §§ 77-90, cited above).     46575/18* 26/09/2018 Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY 1976 Olga Olegovna Mikhaylova Moscow Voters’ strike   Moscow   28/01/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 30 days Moscow City Court 05/05/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.40 p.m. until 10.40 p.m. on 28/01/2018; (2) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 22/02/2018; (3) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.50 p.m. on 25/08/2018 until 5.10 p.m. on 27/08/2018; (4) escorting to and detention at the police station from 6.20 a.m. until 2.15 p.m. on 24/09/2018 (see Butkevich , Tsvetkova and Others , and Korneyeva , cited above);   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 conviction was based and defence witnesses, in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally against retirement age hike on 09/09/2018 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 4 of CAO, detention for 20 days, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 03/10/2018 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above, §§ 77-90).     1763/20* 21/12/2019 Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY 1976 Olga Olegovna Mikhaylova Moscow Rally to support Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 09/07/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.55 p.m. until 8.50 p.m. on 12/06/2019 (the report was compiled only on 17/06/2019) (see Butkevich , Tsvetkova and Others , and Korneyeva , cited above);   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 conviction was based (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above).     9008/20* 07/02/2020 Konstantinas Stasisovich YANKAUSKAS 1986   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   14/07/2019     Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   15/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000               detention for 7   days Moscow City Court 24/10/2019               Moscow City Court 07/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 until 11.30 a.m. on 29/07/2019; from 4.30 p.m. on 03/08/2019 until 05/08/2019 when the applicant was taken to the court; from 5.22 p.m. on 13/08/2019 until 14/08/2019 when the applicant was taken to the court; (2) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 22/08/2019 (see Butkevich , Tsvetkova and Others , and Korneyeva , cited above);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – (1) rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 14/07/2019 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision Moscow City Court 07/08/2019; (2) rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 03/08/2019 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 9 days, final decision Moscow City Court 21/08/2019 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above, §§ 77-90).     17130/21* 24/03/2021 Konstantinas Stasisovich YANKAUSKAS 1986 Natalya Yuryevna Morozova Moscow Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   18/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 24/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1 p.m. until 7 p.m. on 29/01/2021 (see Butkevich , Tsvetkova and Others , and Korneyeva , cited above);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above);   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 conviction was based in the administrative-offence proceedings under Art.   20.2 § 5 of CAO (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally in support A.   Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 12/03/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above, §§ 77-90);   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019).