FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BEREZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 43924/21 and 12 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 July 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Berezin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 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, 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 in the light of its findings in 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 (the CAO).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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 applications admissible;Holds that there has been a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;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 the 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 4 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
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]
43924/21
23/08/2021
Timofey Alekseyevich BEREZIN
1997
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Surgut
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Region
06/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
45015/21
03/09/2021
Azat Anvarovich MANSUROV
1995
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
17/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings
4,000
45018/21
03/09/2021
Darya Alekseyevna SIBILEVA
1998
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Ryazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
20 hours of community work
Ryazan Regional Court
18/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
46215/21
10/09/2021
Yelena Viktorovna TABULOVICH
1972
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Tomsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 13,000
Tomsk Regional Court
23/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
49678/21
17/09/2021
Tatyana Gennadyevna KOROVINA
1955
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Syktyvkar
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
17/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
56969/21
19/11/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZENKOVSKIY
1987
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Perm
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
08/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
57009/21
19/11/2021
Boris Anatolyevich KURKIN
1990
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
07/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings -
4,000
58200/21
27/11/2021
Nikita Olegovich SHMATKO
1994
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
03/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
58270/21
27/11/2021
Vladislav Igorevich DRUGOV
1989
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Vladimir
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Vladimir Regional Court
29/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings
4,000
58281/21
27/11/2021
Aygul Maratovna AMINEVA
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Izhevsk
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic
28/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 21/04/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
58295/21
27/11/2021
Sergey Mikhaylovioch BIZYAYEV
1975
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Perm
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
04/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021- Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in administrative proceedings
4,000
58308/21
27/11/2021
Anastasiya Yuryevna GALKINA
1998
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Vladimir
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Vladimir Regional Court
24/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings
4,000
59141/21
27/11/2021
Vladimir Nikolayevich DEMENTYEV
1989
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Volgograd
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
10/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 21/04/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.