FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF AYNBINDER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 49839/17 and 13 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 Aynbinder 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. 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 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 v. Russia (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 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, and 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).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 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. 5809/17 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;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 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]
49839/17
03/07/2017
Sergey Leonidovich AYNBINDER
1973
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Moscow
11/11/2016
Protest against the toll collection system ‘PLATON’
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000
13/01/2017, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 11/11/2016 and 13/11/2016 as an administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence report 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
4,000
1600/18
26/12/2017
Olga Arkadyevna KARAMYSHEVA
1958
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
26/03/2017
Taking pictures of the applicant’s son’s solo demonstration against construction fraud
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
28/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
1605/18
26/12/2017
Ivan Sergeyevich KARAMYSHEV
1986
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
26/03/2017
Protest of a defrauded shareholder against housing construction fraud
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
26/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
5629/18
20/11/2017
Yan Nikolayevich KATELEVSKIY
1981
Kurakin Yevgeniy Nikolayevich
Reutov
Moscow
09/08/2016
Protest against unlawful actions of a local judge and the police
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
22/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
25651/19
30/04/2019
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich YEGOROV
1995
Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna
Kazan
(i) Kazan
25/10/2018
Picket against attack on political and economic liberties in Russia
(use of cardboard mock-up tombstones)
(ii) Kazan
12/12/2018
Protest against the
authorities’ failure to respect the Constitution
(i) article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, administrative detention of 7 days,
(ii) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 12 days
(i) Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
31/10/2018
(ii) Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
29/12/2018
conviction for staging solo demonstrations with recourse to quickly (de)assembled objects (see Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 51-57, 4 July 2023)- both sets of proceedings
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention:
(i) between 29/10/2018 and 30/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence report in respect of the events of 25/10/2018 had been compiled, and
(ii) between 27/10/2018 and 28/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence report in respect of the events of 12/12/2018 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 proceedings
5,000
20674/21
27/03/2021
Mariya Andreyevna STARIKOVA
1988
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Moscow
07/07/2020
Support of journalist I. Safronov,
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
16/10/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention on 07/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
40679/21
25/07/2021
Valeriy Sergeyevich SEMENISHCHEV
1974
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Kirov
17/11/2020
Drawing attention to environmental problems in Kirov
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Kirov Regional Court
03/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
41315/21
02/08/2021
Darya Sergeyevna BOLSHAKOVA
1989
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Kaliningrad
10/10/2020
Political protest
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
23/03/2021
5,000
17991/22
13/03/2022
Anna Valeryevna KRECHETOVA
1970
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Moscow
06/09/2021
Support of Crimean Tatars
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 16 days
Moscow City Court
13/09/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention in the police station between 06/09/2021 and 08/09/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, and after the administrative offence report 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
5,000
34712/22
11/07/2022
Darya Sergeyevna TSYBINA
1999
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Volgogda
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Volgograd Regional Court
31/03/2022
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the administrative offence report 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
4,000
35080/22
04/07/2022
Anton Sergeyevich NEKHAYEV
1998
Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2. § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 6 days
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
05/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the administrative offence report 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
5,000
48088/22
15/09/2022
Anastasiya Vyacheslavovna ZHDANOVA
1994
Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Moscow
Moscow
08/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
01/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
1697/23
26/11/2022
Alena Igorevna PAVLOVA
1992
Moscow
26/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
25/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 26/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2250/23
29/12/2022
Svetlana Valeryevna GETIYA
1955
Moscow
27/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
05/09/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report,
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.