FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BARKHATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 3628/18 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 June 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Barkhatova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 May 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 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, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion in application no. 3628/18, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time‑‑imit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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); and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 186-88, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
15. Lastly, the Court has examined the remainder of the complaints raised by the applicants in applications nos. 5157/18, 31838/18 and 12606/19 and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. 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 the applicants’ complaints 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 well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and declares the remainder of applications nos. 5157/18, 31838/18 and 12606/19 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose 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 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 1 June 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
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 charges
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]
3628/18
23/12/2017
Irina Alekseyevna BARKHATOVA
1986
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Anti-corruption manifestation
Sochi
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
12/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
3863/18
26/12/2017
and
24270/19
11/04/2019
Svetlana Anatolyevna UTKINA
1968
Andreyev Viktor Alekseyevich
St Petersburg
Opposition manifestation
St Petersburg
29/04/2017
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Political manifestation
St Petersburg
07/10/2018
Rally in support of Khabarovsk and Belarus protests
St Petersburg
15/08/2020
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
35 hours’ compulsory work
5 days’ administrative arrest
10 days’ administrative detention
St Petersburg City Court
11/07/2017
Moscow City Court
22/08/2019
St Petersburg City Court
15/10/2018
St Petersburg City Court
18/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - three of the above sets of proceedings, which ended with the final judgments of 15/10/2018, 22/08/2019 and 18/02/2021, respectively.
5,000
5157/18
08/01/2018
Yuliya Viktorovna MYSHEVA
1986
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
26/03/2017
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
24/07/2017
Moscow City Court
09/11/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 26/03/2017, and (ii) 31/01/2021, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on both occasions; delayed escorting to a police station on 31/01/2021;
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.
4,000
7553/18
27/01/2018
and
12606/19
05/02/2019
Yelena Anatolyevna PARIY
1969
Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich
Yekaterinburg
"Stroll in Support of Opposition movement "Artpodgotovka""
Yekaterinburg
23/07/2017
Manifestation against the pension reform
Yekaterinburg
09/09/2018
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
and
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
9 days of administrative arrest
and
fine of
RUB 10,000
15 days of administrative detention
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
01/08/2017
and
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
14/11/2017
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
14/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 09/09/2018 and 11/09/2018 as administrative suspect: no evidence/ assessment of any exceptional circumstances under the CAO;
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 proceedings).
6,000
13182/18
26/02/2018
Vasiliy Eduardovich LI
1999
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption manifestation
Vladivostok
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 500
Primorye Regional Court
30/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 12/06/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
26103/18
10/05/2018
Andrey Vasilyevich ZHUZHGOV
1969
Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich
Sochi
Manifestation in support of
A. Navalnyy
Krasnodar
07/11/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
35 hours of compulsory work
Krasnodar Regional Court
06/12/2017
3,500
31838/18
25/06/2018
Petr Valeryevich MASLOV
1988
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
12/06/2017
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/04/2018
Moscow City Court
17/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention (i) on 12/06/2017, and (ii) on 31/01/2021, in each case for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
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, final judgments issued on 12/04/2018 and 17/05/2021
4,000
55764/18
13/11/2018
Ilya Khaimovich MYASKOVSKIY
1971
Manifestation against the pension reform
Nizhniy Novgorod
09/09/2018
Rally in memory of Boris Nemtsov
Nizhniy Novgorod
25/02/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
20 days’ administrative detention
20 days’ administrative detention
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
14/11/2018
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
16/05/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 11/09/2018 and 12/09/2018 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 - both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 12/09/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
6,000
1523/19
14/12/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich KAN
1986
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Opposition manifestation
Cheboksary
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia
03/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
22697/19
12/04/2019
Svetlana Valeryevna LOZOVSKAYA
1975
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Manifestation against the pension reform
Ulan-Ude
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic
15/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
3,500
29381/19
16/05/2019
and
27859/20
12/06/2020
Valeriya Ivanovna SKOROBOGATOVA
1970
29381/19
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
27859/20
Timakova Kristina Igorevna
Moscow
Opposition manifestation
Moscow
05/05/2018
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
fine of
RUB 250,000
(not paid by the applicant)
Moscow City Court
16/11/2018
Moscow City Court
22/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 05/05/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
and (ii) 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect: no evidence/ assessment of any "exceptional circumstances" under the CAO;
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)
4,000
9711/20
30/01/2020
Nikita Igorevich PETROV
1990
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/11/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.
3,500
10236/20
12/02/2020
Nikolay Andreyevich LOGVIN
1993
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov
Moscow
12/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 150,000
Moscow City Court
12/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention there on 12/06/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
10704/20
17/02/2020
Andrey Viktorovich OREL
1977
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
14/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
02/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 14/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
14243/20
22/01/2020
Petr Nikolayevich ALESHIN
1965
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
02/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
25541/20
03/06/2020
Artemiy Sergeyevich BOBROV
1992
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
10/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
02/10/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting on 10/08/2019 to the police office for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours (raised on appeal)
4,000
31415/20
30/06/2020
Daniil Konstantinovich LATYSHEV
1999
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Opposition manifestation for freedom of assembly
Moscow
30/01/2019
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 200,000
Moscow City Court
30/09/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.