FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BARYBIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 28623/21 and 11 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 Barybin 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 participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols.
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 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 and Zülküf Murat Kahraman v. Turkey, no. 65808/10, § 45, 16 July 2019, 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. The 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 (CAO); 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 COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings 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 under Article 6 of the Convention;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]
28623/21
16/05/2021
Nikolay Sergeyevich BARYBIN
1998
Darya Dmitriyevna
Aksenova
Kolomna
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 12 days
Moscow City Court
12/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
40353/21
30/07/2021
Anatoliy Aleksandrovich BEREZIKOV
1983
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Rostov-on-Don
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Rostov Regional Court
15/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
53280/21
06/10/2021
Stanislav Timofeyevich LUKYANOV
1964
Konstantin Mikhaylovich
Zinovyev
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
07/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
54063/21
14/10/2021
Andrey Rimovich KIRSANOVSKIY
1997
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Zboroshenko
Mytishchi
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Moscow City Court
23/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
33214/22
06/08/2022
Maksim Anatolyevich SIMONOV
1990
Aleksey Vladimirovich
Bushmakov
Yekaterinburg
Anti-war protest
Yekaterinburg
26/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours of community work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
18/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 26/02/2022 for compiling an 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
37622/22
16/07/2022
Mikhail Mikhaylovich ZIMIN
1988
Aleksey Alekseyevich
Levchenko
Rostov-on-Don
Anti-war protest
Rostov-on-Don
06/03/2022
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Rostov Regional Court
07/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
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
37779/22
21/07/2022
Nikita Aleksandrovich BELYAKOV
1997
Natalya Andreyevna
Baranova
Moscow
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
02/04/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 7 days
St Petersburg City Court
07/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/04/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
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
39789/22
05/08/2022
Violetta Albertovna GUASARI
1994
Yekaterina Viktorovna
Dadayeva
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
02/04/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 3 days
St Petersburg City Court
05/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/04/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
47969/22
15/09/2022
Andrey Yuryevich ARKHIPOV
1990
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
09/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
48020/22
15/09/2022
Aleksey Anatolyevich AGAFONOV
1959
Anti-war protest
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
19/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 13/03/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
48510/22
29/09/2022
Marina Yevgenyevna ZAMYATINA
1999
Yekaterina Viktorovna
Dadayeva
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
02/04/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
80 hours of community service
St Petersburg City Court
31/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/04/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
48752/22
13/09/2022
Yegor Sergeyevich KULIKOV
2001
Anti-war protest
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 13/03/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
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.