SECOND SECTION
CASE OF DIDENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 54032/17 and 26 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Didenko and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 March 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 participants and organisers 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.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants and organisers 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.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. 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”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 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 administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 37-43, 8 October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, there is no need to examine remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.
13. Furthermore, some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 CONVENTION15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
16. 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;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, decides that it is not necessary to examine the remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications 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 30 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
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]
54032/17
17/07/2017
Irina Viktorovna DIDENKO
1994
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
19/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report
4,000
54050/17
17/07/2017
Aleksandr Vladimirovich NOVGORODOV
1980
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
25/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
54076/17
17/07/2017
Mikhail Sergeyevich DIDENKO
1988
Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich
Melekhovo
Anticorruption rally
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
02/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report
4,000
55068/17
17/07/2017
Georgiy Vasilevich DZIMISTARISHVILI
1989
Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich
Melekhovo
Anticorruption rally
Rostov-on-Don
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
1 day of detention
Rostov Regional Court
25/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention –
on 26-27/03/2017 the applicant was brought to a police station and then kept in detention after the offence report was compiled;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
60932/17
16/08/2017
Irina Tomasovna YERMOLAYEVA
1967
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
Kazan
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
24/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – detention on 29/03/2017 for more than 3 hours for compiling an offence report relating to the rally on 26/03/2017.
4,000
60939/17
16/08/2017
Ayrat Ilshatovich GARIPOV
1998
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
Kazan
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
24/05/2017
3,500
60978/17
16/08/2017
Denis Olegovich KAYUMOV
1998
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
Kazan
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
24/05/2017
3,500
60987/17
16/08/2017
Ivan Mikhaylovich KUZMIN
1992
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
Kazan
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
24/05/2017
3,500
60993/17
16/08/2017
Aleksandr Vasilyevich NEBAYKIN
1987
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
Kazan
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
24/05/2017
3,500
60998/17
16/08/2017
Vladimir Aleksandrovich SOLOVTSOV
1967
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
Kazan
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
24/05/2017
3,500
69627/17
19/09/2017
Nadezhda Pavlovna KHALIKOVA
1997
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
29/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report.
4,000
69652/17
19/09/2017
Andrey Vitalyevich MARTIROSOV
1995
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
13/07/2017
3,500
69798/17
20/09/2017
Yuliya Damirovna SHALGALIYEVA
1990
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
06/07/2017
3,500
69942/17
07/09/2017
Mariya Sergeyevna NIZHIVENKO
1997
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Tambov
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Tambov Regional Court
15/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of 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
69947/17
07/09/2017
Marat Masgodovich LATYPOV
1972
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Naberezhnye Chelny
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
28/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station and detention there on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of 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
69953/17
07/09/2017
Pavel Sergeyevich IVANOV
1995
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Kurgan
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Kurgan Regional Court
10/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station and detention there on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of 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
69964/17
07/09/2017
Irina Yegorovna IVANOVA
1969
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Kurgan
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Kurgan Regional Court
10/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station and detention there on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of 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
70011/17
07/09/2017
Svetlana Vladimirovna ABOLONINA
1985
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
24/05/2017
3,500
70017/17
07/09/2017
Aleksandr Vasilyevich ABOLONIN
1983
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
31/05/2017
3,500
70193/17
07/09/2017
Aleksandr Sergeyevich GOLYSHEV
1964
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Naberezhnye Chelny
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
21/06/2017
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 a police station and detention there on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report.
4,000
70381/17
07/09/2017
Roman Aleksandrovich ZOLOTOVITSKIY
1960
Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich
Melekhovo
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
30/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
70460/17
07/09/2017
Vladislav Aleksandrovich ZAKAMOV
1993
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Khabarovsk
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
14/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
70518/17
07/09/2017
Sergey Sergeyevich IVANOV
1995
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
12 days of detention
Moscow City Court
31/03/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful pre-trial detention - on 26-28/03/2017 the applicant was brought to the police station to draw up an offence record; was kept in detention after the offence report was compiled;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention – the applicant started serving the sentence of administrative detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings do not offer suspensive effect;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
71026/17
07/09/2017
Grigoriy Aleksandrovich PRONKOV
1989
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article
20.2 § 6.1 and
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000 and
7 days of detention
Moscow City Court
17/05/2017
Moscow City Court
29/03/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on
26-27/03/2017 the applicant, after having been brought to a police station to compile an administrative offence record, remained in detention even after the offence record had been compiled;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal: lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against sentence of detention - the applicant started serving the sentence of administrative detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings do not offer suspensive effect;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
71112/17
18/09/2017
Angelina Olegovna GORBACHENKO
1997
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Anticorruption rally
Krasnodar
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 1,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
06/04/2017
2,000
72015/17
25/09/2017
Sergey Mikhaylovich MAKARCHUK
1988
Katsko Vitaliy Nikolayevich
Krasnodar
Anticorruption rally
Krasnodar
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
15 days of detention
Krasnodar Regional Court
06/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 26/03/2017 and detention there for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report.
5,000
79263/17
09/11/2017
Aleksandr Vladimirovich BANNIKOV
1991
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Rostov-on-Don
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Rostov Regional Court
11/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.