FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BOYARSHINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2829/18 and 14 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 October 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Boyarshinov 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 14 September 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 of them 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); Misan v. Russia no. 4261/04, § 70, 2 October 2014, and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 123-38, 4 February 2020, as to various shortcomings related to police searches at the applicants’ premises; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, related to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 178-88, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention; Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62-65, as to the right of organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of their administrative-offence proceedings. 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 CONVENTION155. 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 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 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 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 5 October 2023, 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 charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage (in euros)[1]
2829/18
26/12/2017
Andrey Vladimirovich BOYARSHINOV
1984
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
Anti-corruption rally
Kazan
14/05/2017
Anti-corruption rally (in support of Mr Navalnyy)
Kazan
08/07/2017
Anti-corruption rally
Kazan
05/05/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
community service of 35 hours
administrative detention of 15 days
administrative detention of 20 days
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, adopted on 21/06/2017
in the applicant’s absence and received on 26/06/2017
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
03/08/2017
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
25/05/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, until the respective hearings on the applicant’s administrative‑offence cases:
- from 3.00 p.m. on 18/05/2018 to 10.40 a.m. on 19/05/2018,
- from 9.25 p.m. on 08/09/2018 to 09/09/2018;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 21/06/2017, 03/08/2017, 25/05/2018, 18/09/2018 and 05/05/2021;
Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - on 01/08/2020 the applicant participated in a solo demonstration to support S. Furgal. He was convicted under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO and sentenced to 7 days of administrative detention. Final decision: Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 20/08/2020;
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - two counts:
1) On 08/09/2018 the applicant was arrested in his flat for publishing a post in Vkontakte calling to participate in a rally against the pension reform. He was convicted under art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO and sentenced to 15 days of administrative detention. Final decision: Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 18/09/2018;
2) On 20/04/2021 the applicant was arrested in his flat for publishing a post in Vkontakte calling to participate in a rally to support A. Navalnyy. He was convicted under art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO and sentenced to 20 days of administrative detention. Final decision: Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 05/05/2021;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - three counts: the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance following the events of 05/05/2018, 08/09/2018 and 19/08/2020 were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for his participation in the same non-notified public event of 14/05/2017: under art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention of 12 days, final decision of 06/06/2017) and under Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (community service of 35 hours, final decision received on 26/06/2017)
7,000
2933/18
25/12/2017
Sergey Aleksandrovich STREMIDLO
1979
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
13/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 13/07/2017
3,500
3569/18
20/12/2017
Diana Anatolyevna KARIMOVA
1996
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative detention of 5 days, and fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court, 20/06/2017 and
18/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 20/06/2017 and 18/07/2017;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 13/06/2017 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
4,500
18385/18
01/12/2017
Yelena Yuryevna BLINOVA
1978
Romanov Pavel Valeryevich
Cheboksary
Opposition rally
Cheboksary
16/04/2017
Opposition rally
Cheboksary
29/10/2017
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000 (charges requalified on appeal to article 20.2 § 1 of CAO)
fine of RUB 200,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
01/06/2017
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
12/12/2017
5,000
29300/18
11/06/2018
Irina Ivanovna LYASHCHENKO
1960
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Perm
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Berezniki, Perm Region
07/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
community service of 24 hours
Perm Regional Court
28/12/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Perm Regional Court, 28/12/2017
4,000
29304/18
11/06/2018
Roman Aleksandrovich KOROTAYEV
1978
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Berezniki, Perm Region
07/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours of community works
Perm Regional Court
26/12/2017
4,000
29495/18
09/06/2018
Irina Stepanovna NORMAN
1993
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Yekaterinburg
07/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
12/12/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 12/12/2017
Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search - search in the applicant’s apartment on 21/04/2021, authorised post factum on 22/04/2021 by the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, appeal dismissed on 26/08/2021 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court. No sufficient reasons for the search (the ground invoked was that the applicant could be Mr Navalnyy’s supporter), broad wording of the search warrant, stereotyped reasoning
4,500
39063/18
07/08/2018
Olga Andreyevna IVANOVA
1965
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy’s candidacy for the presidential election
Volgograd
28/01/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
07/02/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 3.10 p.m. on 28/01/2018 to the beginning of the hearings on the applicant’s administrative‑offence case;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 07/02/2018
4,000
41987/18
30/07/2018
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich BOLDYREV
1968
Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich
Moscow
Rally against constitutional amendments
Voronezh
01/08/2020
Rally
in support of Belarus
Voronezh
24/10/2020
Opposition rally related to journalists’ killings
Voronezh
07/10/2017
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
fine of RUB 20,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
19/11/2020
Voronezh Regional Court
28/05/2021
Voronezh Regional Court
30/01/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.00 p.m. on 28/01/2021 to 29/01/2021 (when the applicant’s trial on the administrative-offence related to his calls to participate in an unauthorised public event started);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 30/01/2018, 19/11/2020, 04/02/2021 and 28/05/2021;
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction for an administrative offence for calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event: article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, administrative detention of 7 days. Final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 04/02/2021;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal –
the sentence of administrative detention of 7 days imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance under art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
6,000
45043/18
12/09/2018
Andrey Grigoryevich IRINARKHOV
1986
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy as candidate for the presidency of Russia
Ufa
28/01/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic
14/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, 14/03/2018
3,500
45228/18
18/09/2018
Irina Alekseyevna ZENINA
1952
Gak Irina Vladimirovna
Rostov-on-Don
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don
24/12/2017
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Rostov Regional Court
20/03/2018
Rostov Regional Court
17/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.30 to 6.30 p.m. (when the applicant’s trial on the administrative offence started) 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 – final decisions: Rostov Regional Court, 20/03/2018 and 17/03/2021
4,000
46156/18
21/09/2018
Roman Sergeyevich SHCHERBAKOV
1988
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally against the refusal to register A. Navalnyy’s candidacy for the 2018 presidential election
Tula
28/01/2018
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Tula
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Tula Regional Court
22/03/2018
Tula Regional Court
22/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”:
-from 02.05 to 07.00 p.m. on 28/01/2018 (the time indicated by the police officers was at variance with the real applicant’s time of deprivation of liberty),
- from 02.40 to 07.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings – final decisions: Tula Regional Court, 22/03/2018 and 22/06/2021
4,000
50044/18
10/10/2018
Yekaterina Andreyevna YANSHINA
1996
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally against Mr Putin’s re‑election as President
Voronezh
05/05/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000 and 2 days of administrative detention
Voronezh Regional Court,
04/06/2018 and
04/07/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.30 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 06/05/2018 (hearings in the applicant’s administrative-offence case under art. 20.2 § 5 of the CAO);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings – final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 04/06/2018 and 04/07/2018;
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for her participation in the same public event: under art. 19.3 § 1 of the CAO (appeal on 04/07/2018, 2 days of detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of the CAO (appeal on 04/06/2018, fine of RUB 5,000)
4,500
50047/18
10/10/2018
Pavel Anatolyevich POTASHOV
1998
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally against Mr Putin’s re‑election as President
Voronezh
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
14/06/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 14/06/2018
3,500
54306/18
09/11/2018
Ivan Aleksandrovich SILAYEV
1978
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
Rally against Mr Putin’s re‑election as President
St Petersburg
05/05/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000 and 6 days of administrative detention
St Petersburg City Court
24/05/2018 and
10/05/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.00 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 09.00 a.m. on 06/05/2018 (hearings in the applicant’s administrative‑offence case);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings – final decisions: St Petersburg City Court 24/05/2018 and 10/05/2018;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO;
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art. 19.3 § 1 of the CAO (appeal on 10/05/2018, 6 days of detention) and under art. 20.2 § 5f the CAO (appeal on 24/05/2018, fine of RUB 15,000)
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.