FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ARSHINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 17472/18 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Arshinov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Stephane Pisani, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 June 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. Some applicants 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 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. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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 Protocols 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 (the CAO); Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; 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; Yartsev v. Russia, no. 16683/17, §§ 28-38, 20 July 2021, concerning the administrative conviction for waving banners with slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public assembly; 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; and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108‑11, 27 November 2012, concerning excessive length of pretrial detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. One applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention on account of his conviction for the participation in a series of solo pickets held “by rotation”. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 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 raised by the applicants;Holds that there has been a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols 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 27 June 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 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]
17472/18
04/04/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich ARSHINOV
1987
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Protest rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
08/11/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 26-27/03/2017,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
4,000
19878/18
17/04/2018
Lyudmila Mikhaylovna TYULENKO
1954
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
"Readings of Constitution"
Moscow (Red Square)
12/05/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Moscow City Court
16/10/2017 (served on the following day)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
3,500
19909/18
15/04/2018
Ruslan Indrisovich GVASHEV
1950
Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
Novorossiysk
Gathering devoted to public prayer near the Tulip Tree on the Circassian Day of Mourning
Golovinka (Sochi)
21/05/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
16/10/2017
3,500
24708/18
15/05/2018
Aleksey Andreyevich VOLKOV
1988
Vorobyev Viktor Viktorovich
Syktyvkar
Anticorruption manifestation
Metallurgov square, Volgograd
10/11/2017
Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO
detention of 2 days
Volgograd Regional Court
15/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
29489/18
13/06/2018
Yelena Valentinovna GUSEVA
1970
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Berezniki
21/04/2021
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Perm
23/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
40 hours of community work
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
17/06/2021
Perm Regional Court
16/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - three sets of administrative proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.25 p.m. on 22/04/2021 until the hearing in the first-instance court on the same date,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for the display of slogans/banners/other symbols by participants in public events - disproportionate interference with her freedom of expression on account of her conviction under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO for two solo pickets in support of A. Navalnyy in Berezniki on 07/10/2017, penalty of 20 hours of community works, final decision by the Perm Regional Court on 13/12/2017
4,000
30639/18
11/06/2018
Tatyana Igorevna BARYSHEVA
1990
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Rally in support of the Telegram messenger
Moscow (Bolshaya Lubyanka, near FSB headquarters)
16/04/2018
Article 20.2.2.
§ 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
16/05/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station between 6.30 p.m. on 16/04/2018 and 10.00 a.m. on 17/04/2018,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
4,000
4398/19
02/01/2019
Sergey Eduardovich KOMANDIROV
1995
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Demonstration for fair elections
Smolensk
15/03/2018
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
20 hours of community works
Smolensk Regional Court
11/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
3,500
4583/19
30/11/2018
Aleksandr Stanislavovich VINOGRADOV
1972
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Anti-corruption meeting
St Petersburg
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
3 days’ detention
St Petersburg City Court
31/05/2018 (both decisions issued on the same day)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 05-06/05/2018,
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 proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO).
5,000
9005/19
19/01/2019
Olga Yuryevna TEODOROVICH
1989
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Rally against the pension reform
St Petersburg
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention of 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
20/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station between 9.08 p.m. on 09/09/2018 and 5.30 p.m. on 10/09/2018,
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 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
10052/19
08/02/2019
Guzel Failovna KHALILOVA
1983
Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna
Kazan
Rally against construction of a waste incineration plant
Kazan
25/03/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
08/08/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
3,500
19621/19
02/04/2019
Igor Vasilyevich PETROV
1997
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally against retirement age hike
Kaliningrad
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
22/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
3,500
22614/19
03/04/2019
Sergey Sergeyevich BOYKO
1974
Rally against retirement age hike
Moscow
29/07/2018
Rally to support I. Azar
Moscow
29/05/2020
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 150,000
Moscow City Court
04/10/2018
Moscow City Court
04/12/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report
(1) from 4.45 p.m. until 7.45 p.m. on 29/07/2018;
(2) from 10.45 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. on 03/09/2019;
(3) from 4.55 until the evening on 29/05/2020,
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 proceedings,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - protest against breach of electoral rights on 31/08/2019 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision by the Moscow City Court on 06/09/2019.
6,500
59268/19
08/11/2019
Barakh Akhmetovich CHEMURZIYEV
1969
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
Protest against change of borders between Ingushetia and Chechnya
Magas
04/10/2018
Protest against change of borders between Ingushetia and Chechnya
Magas
27/03/2019
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 30,000
detention of 10 days
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
28/08/2019
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
12/04/2020
Art. 5 (3) - lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pretrial detention - 14/04/2019 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, Nalchik Town Court, Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic (final 08/05/2019), approx. 7 months of detention, charges under Art. 318 (use of violence against a public official) and 212 (participation in acts of mass disorder accompanied by violence) of the Russian Criminal Code,
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - first set of the proceedings
5,000
26798/21
24/04/2021
Matvey Andreyevich GOLOVANOV
1998
Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevcich
Nizhniy Tagil
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Yekaterinburg
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours of community works
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
07/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention at a police station on 31/01/2021, between 2.50 p.m. and 7.00 p.m..
4,000
50298/21
23/09/2021
Nikolay Andreyevich BASHMAKOV
1991
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Kazan
28/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
detention for 9 days
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
21/04/2021
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
50656/21
06/10/2021
Ivan Andreyevich YELISEYEV
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Izhevsk
21/04/2021
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention of 25 days
Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic
28/04/2021
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls for participation in rallies to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 and 31/01/2021 in Izhevsk, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, community works for 50 hours and detention for 8 days, final decisions by the Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic, on 07/04/2021 and 28/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - three sets of administrative proceedings.
5,000
48547/22
03/10/2022
Semen Mikhaylovich PECHKO
2000
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
Tomsk
06/03/2022
Article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 45,000
Tomsk Regional Court
03/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for the purpose of an offence report between 3.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
4,500
20007/23
07/09/2021
Polina GRIN-ROMANOVA
2001
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention of 12 days
Moscow City Court
24/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
5,000
41229/23
09/11/2023
Aleksandr Ivanovich USHENKO
1949
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
22/01/2022
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
09/08/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 22/01/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
1191/24
08/12/2023
Nikolay Vladimirovich ZIMIREV
1984
Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Moscow
Anti-war protest
Moscow
02/03/2022
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
11/05/2023 (final judgment published on 10/08/2023)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/03/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.