FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BEGLARYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 61346/21 and 14 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 May 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Beglaryan and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 April 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. 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 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); 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 Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences, in order to identify, locate and arrest the applicant.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. In view of the findings in the above paragraphs, 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 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 these applications 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 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 16 May 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]
61346/21
03/12/2021
Kamo Lemaksovich BEGLARYAN
1958
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Forum "Municipal Russia"
Moscow
13/03/2021
article 20.33 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow
30/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 10.30 a.m. until 4.30 p.m. on 13/03/2021;
4,000
61718/21
10/12/2021
Natalya Nikolayevna MASLYAYEVA
1969
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Forum "Municipal Russia"
Moscow
13/03/2021
article 20.33 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Novomoskovskiy District Court of the Tula Region
08/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 10.30 a.m. until 8.45 p.m. on 13/03/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
11056/22
11/02/2022
Pavel Dmitriyevich KIRIKOV
1966
Prosvirkina Kseniya Dmitriyevna
Moscow
Forum "Municipal Russia"
Moscow
13/03/2021
article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow
12/08/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
17980/22
09/03/2022
Igor Igorevich YESHTOKIN
1990
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
09/09/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
18155/22
17/03/2022
Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich NIZHNIKOV
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
17/09/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
18960/22
18/03/2022
Stanislav Igorevich MARTYNOV
1994
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
27/09/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
25025/22
27/04/2022
Petr Nikolayevich ALESHIN
1965
Meeting with candidates for elections to the State Duma
Moscow
20/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
07/02/2022
Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and his subsequent conviction (raised on appeal);
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 detention - escorting to the police station on 23/09/2021 for compiling an offence report in relation to the manifestation on 20/01/2021.
5,000
33586/22
14/06/2022
Nino Davidovna VALISHVILI
1991
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Tyumen
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Tyumen Regional Court
14/02/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.34 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 2.17 a.m. on 22/04/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
34255/22
07/07/2022
Vyacheslav Vladimirovich RYABININ
1978
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Anti-war protest
Rostov-on-Don
06/03/2022
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
detention for 15 days
Rostov Regional Court
19/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 9 a.m. on 07/03/2022;
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
40948/22
05/08/2022
Irina Fidusovna BADERTDINOVA
1990
Sabirov Rim Faridovich
Kazan
Anti-war protest
Kazan
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
06/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 9 a.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
46901/22
14/09/2022
Darya Mikhaylovna MOSHKINA
1994
Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Anti-war protest
Nizhniy Novgorod
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
18/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 2.40 p.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
46951/22
16/09/2022
Tatyana Vladimirovna VOYNICH
1990
Tregubova Yuliya Mikhaylovna
Balashikha
Anti-war protest
Moscow
25/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
15/07/2022
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
50249/22
06/10/2022
Boris Vadimovich MAVRIN
1993
Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich
Samara
Anti-war protest
Samara
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Samara Regional Court
09/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.15 p.m. until 8.40 p.m. on 27/02/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
50581/22
27/09/2022
Polina Igorevna BORISOVA
1999
Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Anti-war protest
Nizhniy Novgorod
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
01/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.40 p.m. until 10.50 p.m. on 24/02/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
53418/22
22/10/2022
Andrey Aleksandrovich KARELIN
2002
Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Rally in support of political prisoners
St Petersburg
11/02/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
St Petersburg City Court
23/06/2022
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.