FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF AGABEKYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 22474/21 and 17 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 May 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Agabekyan and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 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. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
JURISDICTION6. 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 CONVENTION7. 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-LAW12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocol, 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 and its Protocol in the light of its findings in 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 (the CAO); 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; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in administrative offence proceedings in order to identify, locate and arrest him; 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 COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. 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, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocol thereto 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 14 May 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
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]
22474/21
05/04/2021
Narek Gagikovich AGABEKYAN
1995
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Tomsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tomsk Regional Court
11/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Tomsk Regional Court, 11/03/2021
3,500
22582/21
02/04/2021
Pavel Dmitriyevich BAGDALOV
1998
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Tomsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Tomsk Regional Court
05/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Detention from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. on 31/01/2021 for drawing up an administrative offence record; 3 hours later the applicant was brought to the police station, where he was detained from 6 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. waiting for a court hearing, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Tomsk Regional Court, 05/03/2021
4,000
45286/21
23/08/2021
Olga Vadimovna VASILYEVA
1950
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Pyatigorsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2.
§ 1 of CAO
detention for 1 day
Stavropol Regional Court
24/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 2 p.m. on 01/02/2021 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 24/03/2021
5,000
46104/21
10/09/2021
Nikita Aleksandrovich BAZHIN
1993
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
22/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 22/03/2021
4,000
46129/21
31/08/2021
Andrey Sergeyevich STARIKOV
1998
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
04/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 5.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 11.30 a.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/03/2021,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
1276/22
24/12/2021
Roman Sergeyevich PROKHOROV
1993
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Rally “Freedom to the political prisoners”
Moscow
04/11/2020
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
27/09/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.10 p.m. to 8.45 p.m. on 04/11/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/09/2021
4,000
3042/22
14/12/2021
Fedor Anatolyevich KOMAROV
1999
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
21/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/06/2021
4,000
11599/22
17/02/2022
Olga Anatolyevna NAZARENKO
1975
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Ivanovo
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
100 hours of community work
Ivanovo Regional Court
18/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.05 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 1.10 a.m. on 22/04/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Ivanovo Regional Court, 18/08/2021
5,000
12079/22
09/02/2022
Vitaliy Dmitriyevich PETRUKHIN
1989
Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich
Sochi
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Krasnodar
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
09/12/2021
3,500
13220/22
18/02/2022
Tatyana Vasilyevna KUDRYASHOVA
1992
Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Nizhniy Novgorod
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
18/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 18/08/2021
4,000
24067/22
09/02/2022
Andrey Pavlovich PETRUKHIN
2002
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
21/04/2021
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
17/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Detention at the police station on 30/04/2021 for 5 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 17/08/2021,
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 participant of a rally and his subsequent conviction (raised on appeal)
5,000
24713/22
06/08/2021
Andrey Viktorovich KOROVYANSKIY
1988
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
detention for 7 days
Moscow City Court
08/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 1.40 p.m. on 01/02/2021 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/02/2021,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
31689/22
13/06/2022
Yekaterina Aleksandrovna SHAKUN
1996
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Anti-war protest
Rostov-on-Don
06/03/2022
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
detention for 15 days
Rostov Regional Court
19/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 6 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 11 a.m. on 07/03/2022 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 19/03/2022,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
33769/22
22/06/2022
Roman Igorevich ZHUKOV
1985
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Anti-war protest
Ufa
06/03/2022
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
detention for 24 hours
Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic
11/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.10 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 2 p.m. on 07/03/2022 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, 11/04/2022
5,000
40255/22
30/07/2022
Marat Kadirovich KHUSAINOV
1978
Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Anti-war protest
Nizhniy Novgorod
24/02/2022
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
13/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.40 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 7.20 p.m. on 25/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 13/05/2022
4,000
41557/22
12/08/2022
Valentina Aleksandrovna SAFONOVA
1994
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
25/02/2022
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
12/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 9.30 p.m. on 25/02/2022 to 3.45 p.m. on 26/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg Regional Court, 12/04/2022
4,000
47578/22
06/09/2022
Larisa Timofeyevna SHVYNDINA
1959
Anti-war protest
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
15/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.30 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 1.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 15/06/2022
4,000
52091/22
07/10/2022
Mikhail NAYDEN
1982
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
09/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.11 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 1 a.m. on 07/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/06/2022
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.