FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ANTONOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 20265/18 and 11 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 September 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Antonova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 July 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 against solo demonstrators. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
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 10 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016).
8. In the leading case of Novikova and Others (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 432-42, 7 February 2017, and Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023).
9. 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. Some 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, 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; 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 (CAO); Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; 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 COMPLAINTS12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), 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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Article 10 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 12 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention
(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Location
Date
Purpose of the demonstration
Administrative charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Name of the court
Date
Other relevant information
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)
[1]
20265/18
11/04/2018
Yana Gennadyevna ANTONOVA
1979
Krasnodar
07/10/2017
Attempt to display opposition banners on a bridge
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 3 days
Krasnodar Regional Court
12/10/2017
ban on public events at certain locations - a bridge
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of the first instance on 07/10/2017 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
50745/18
17/10/2018
Yelena Viktorovna SHUKAYEVA
1968
Yekaterinburg
16/03/2018
Support of S. Tiunov
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
18/04/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention (i) on 16/03/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, and (ii) between 06/08/2020 and 07/08/2020 as administrative suspect, until the first instance hearing of 07/08/2020,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Yekaterinburg, 01/08/2020, protest against the arrest of a solo demonstrator – arrest, conviction under art. 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO, community works of 40 hours, final judgment of 07/10/2020, Sverdlovsk Regional Court
4,000
54116/20
15/11/2020
Denis Vyacheslavovich GAUERT
1983
Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich
Nizhniy Tagil
Yekaterinburg, 01/08/2020, Support of S. Furgal
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 5 days
and
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
05/08/2020
and
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
10/11/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention between 01/08/2020 and 02/08/2020 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 – two sets of the proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of the first instance on 02/08/2020 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
2529/21
12/12/2020
Madina Begerchinovna AVSETOVA
1998
(i) Tula
10/07/2020
Protest against restrictions of the right to peaceful protest
(ii) Moscow
21/12/2020
Support of A. Navalnyy
(i) article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 800
(ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
(i) Tula Regional Court
16/09/2020
(ii) Moscow City Court
11/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention:
(i) between 10/07/2020 and 11/07/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled, and
(ii) on 21/12/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 28/12/2020 only),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - two sets of the proceedings
4,000
11137/21
08/02/2021
Galina Nikolayevna LAZORSKAYA
1958
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Sochi
22/06/2020
Protest against the authorities’ various acts and policies including abusive criminal prosecution
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
11/08/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 23/01/2021 and 24/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been drawn up,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - two sets of proceedings,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - a rally in support of A. Navalnyy, Sochi, 23/01/2021 - arrest, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, administrative detention of 7 days; final judgment given by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 31/03/2021,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately on 24/01/2021, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
12841/21
14/02/2021
Nikita Aleksandrovich KHRAMOV
1995
Kazan
01/08/2020
Protest against constitutional amendments
(Use of an A-shaped frame with a poster "Russian Constitution" with a mourning ribbon on it and flowers under it)
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 7 days
Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic
15/08/2020
conviction on account of organising an unnotified public event with recourse to a “quickly (de)assembled object” (see Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 01/08/2020 and 02/08/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled; failure to draw up an arrest record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
5,000
32650/21
11/06/2021
Igor Vladimirovich KOSTIN
1971
Nizhniy Novgorod
30/08/2020
Support of N. Platoshkin
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
24/12/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 31/01/2020 and 01/02/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,
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 the proceedings,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – rally in support of A. Navalnyy, Nizhniy Novgorod 31/01/2020 – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, fine of RUB 150,000 (final judgment: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 07/04/2021)
5,500
39205/21
19/07/2021
Viktor Filippovich RAU
1959
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Barnaul
29/01/2021
Support of arrested political activists including Navalnyy
Barnaul
02/03/2021
Protest against local authorities’ inaction and a call to meet with the Prime Minister visiting the town on that day
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 6 days
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 12 days
Altay Regional Court
02/02/2021
Altay Regional Court
18/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention:
(i) on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offences, and subsequently between 25/01/2021 and 26/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial,
(ii) between 29/01/2021 and 31/01/2021 as administrative suspect, for drawing up “administrative material” (offence record only compiled on 31/01/2021) and pending trial, and
(iii) between 02/03/2021 and 03/03/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - all sets of the proceedings,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – on 27/01/2021 and 29/01/2021 the applicant published on Telegram calls to participate in solo demonstrations in support of political activists including Navalnyy– conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, administrative detention of 6 days, Altay Regional Court, final judgment of 02/02/2021,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies:
(i) Picketing in support of Khabarovsk protests, Barnaul, 05/12/2020 - arrest on 04/02/2021 (at the exit of the detention centre where the applicant had served his sentence of administrative detention), conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, final judgment: 22/04/2021, Altay Regional Court, and
(ii) Rally in support of A. Navalnyy, Barnaul, 23/01/2021 – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment: 18/03/2021, Altay Regional Court,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 31/01/2021 and on 10/03/2021 were each time executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
6,000
43612/21
14/08/2021
Aleksandr Engelsovich SMIRNOV
1961
Borodina Milita Petrovna
Magnitogorsk
Magnitogorsk
21/04/2021
Support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 30,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
16/06/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - two sets of the proceedings,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - on 07/09/2021 the applicant published a post in Vkontakte calling for participation in an unauthorised opposition rally in Magnitogorsk – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 20 days, final judgment: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 24/11/2021
5,000
49869/21
28/09/2021
Ivan KHAMPEL
2002
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
30/06/2019
Protest against uncontrolled use of public funds by the city authorities, distribution of leaflets
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 30/06/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record
4,000
52964/22
02/11/2022
Antoniy Filippovich SHUVALOV
1999
Moscow
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
05/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 24/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4.000
55603/22
31/10/2022
Mikhail Anatolyevich PODIVILOV
2000
Moscow
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
01/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention 24/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.