FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ANDREYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 26870/19 and 24 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Andreyev 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 2 November 2023,
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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings. In some applications the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER 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 6 § 1 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8. In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. In some applications the 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, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, and Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 72-74 and 81-82, 5 April 2022, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), 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 the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
ActingDeputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Penalty
Date of final domestic decision
Name of court
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
26870/19
08/05/2019
Sergey Yuryevich ANDREYEV
1977
suspension of the driving licence for 1 year
22/11/2018,
Leninskiy District Court of Tula
1,000
50285/19
10/09/2019
Ivan Mikhaylovich KASHNIKOV
1978
Andrey Pavlovich
Mitrofanov
Gornyak
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months
17/05/2019,
Loktevskiy District Court of Gornyak
1,000
576/20
14/12/2019
Aleksandr Vladimirovich ROMANOV
1982
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin
Volsk
administrative fine of RUB 30,000,
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of driving licence for 1 year and 6 months
31/07/2020,
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region
06/12/2019,
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region
1,000
773/20
10/12/2019
Andrey Vasilyevich YELKHOV
1970
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin
Volsk
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 10 months
02/12/2019,
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region
1,000
5278/20
31/12/2019
Kristina Valeryevna OGANYAN
1995
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin
Volsk
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months
20/12/2019,
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region
1,000
6963/20
28/01/2020
Kamil Danilevich RAKHIMOV
1994
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
administrative detention of 10 days
06/08/2019,
Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - on 27/07/2019 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art. 29.6(4) CAO).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO)
3,900
13020/20
25/02/2020
Sergey Vladimirovich LATYSHEV
1985
Andrey Olegovich
Valenkov
Nizhniy Novgorod
administrative fine of RUB 350,000
30/10/2019,
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
1,000
11456/21
29/01/2021
Vladimir Mikhaylovich MITROFANOV
1999
administrative fine of RUB 30,000
29/07/2020,
Angarsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region
1,000
13203/21
13/02/2021
Oleg Yuryevich ADAYEV
1974
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin
Volsk
administrative fine of RUB 30,000
29/01/2021,
Volsky District Court of the Saratov Region
1,000
20575/21
15/03/2021
Ruslan Nikolayevich UKHANOV
1981
Yevgeniy Valeryevich Kulakov
Arkhangelsk
administrative fine of RUB 1,000
12/02/2021, Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
1,000
23083/21
12/04/2021
Vladimir Vladimirovich BARABANOV
1967
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Pomazuyev
Vilnius
administrative fine of RUB 10,000, administrative fine of RUB 1,000
16/03/2021,
Bryansk Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence. The applicant was arrested on 31 January 2021 and was brought to the police station
3,900
24870/21
18/04/2021
Dmitriy Valeryevich YEGOROV
1981
Innokentiy Valeryevich
Yegorov
Yakutsk
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months
19/10/2020,
Yakutsk Town Court, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)
1,000
27156/21
05/05/2021
Fakhrad Sardarovich SHISHKOV
1972
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Zboroshenko
Mytishchi
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 18 months
17/11/2020, Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow
1,000
32129/21
31/05/2021
Yuriy Sergeyevich LOBUREV
1987
Andrey Olegovich
Valenkov
Nizhniy Novgorod
suspension of the driving licence, administrative fine of RUB 30,000
01/12/2020,
Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod
1,000
34968/21
15/06/2021
Denis Mikhaylovich BAKUSHIN
1982
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months
28/05/2021,
Konoshskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region
1,000
34983/21
30/06/2021
Sergey Viktorovich ASTAKHIN
1967
administrative fine of RUB 5,000
02/03/2021,
Kirishi Town Court of the Leningrad Region
1,000
36848/21
05/07/2021
Andrey Vasilyevich PODPASKOV
1985
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months
04/06/2021,
Zavodskoy District Court of Saratov
1,000
43821/21
12/08/2021
Marina Viktorovna ROMANOVA
1984
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months
12/02/2021,
Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow
1,000
44368/21
17/08/2021
Aleksey Yuryevich LOGUNOV
1990
Yevgeniy Maksimovich MARTYNOV
2000
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Zboroshenko
Mytishchi
administrative fine of RUB 10,000 to each applicant
16/04/2021,
Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful pre-trial detention - applicants were taken to the police station on 31/01/2021 as administrative suspects: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as administrative suspects on 31/01/2021 beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO)
3,900
44387/21
16/08/2021
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich BORISOV
1990
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 2 years
12/08/2021, Shipunovsky District Court of the Altay Region
1,000
45000/21
21/08/2021
Dmitriy Anatolyevich ROMANOV
1976
Vologin Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin
Volsk
suspension of the driving licence for a year and 6 months, administrative fine of RUB 30,000
18/08/2021,
Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region
1,000
50265/21
27/09/2021
Mikhail Yulianovich SELITSKIY
1994
administrative detention of 5 days
29/03/2021,
Rostov Regional Court
1,000
51716/21
01/10/2021
Vladimir Vladimirovich PALYULIN
1984
Oksana Gennadyevna
Olgerdt
Moscow
administrative detention of 12 days
02/04/2021,
Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity.
Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled
3,900
54386/21
08/10/2021
Rostislav Sergeyevich DEDYUK
1972
suspension of the hunting licence for 12 months
14/04/2021,
Kirov Town Court of the Leningrad Region
1,000
54842/21
16/10/2021
Konstantin Aleksandrovich ARKHANGELSKIY
1979
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin
Volsk
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months
29/09/2021,
Balakovskiy District Court of the Saratov Region
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy