FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GABDULVALEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 60966/17 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 July 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gabdulvaleyev 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 29 June 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 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. Some applicants also invoked Article 10; however, these complaints fall to be examined under 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 (see, in particular, Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 345-60 and 404-77, 7 February 2017, and Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 67-71, 30 April 2019). 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 (CAO); Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 179-91, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, concerning lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Having regard to its findings above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings in their cases.
15. The applicant in application no. 28903/19 also raised a complaint under Article 5 of the Convention. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, this complaint is belated. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. 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, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of application no. 28903/19 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 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 20 July 2023, 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 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
(in euros)[1]
60966/17
16/08/2017
31573/18
20/06/2018
Azat Sadgatovich GABDULVALEYEV
1964
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anticorruption rally
Kazan
26/03/2017
Anticorruption rally
Kazan
14/05/2017
Anticorruption rally
Kazan
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
30 hours of community work
administrative detention of 10 days
fine of
RUB 20,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
21/06/2017
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
28/06/2017
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
20/12/2017
4,000
79311/17
09/11/2017
Aleksandr Andreyevich MARKIN
1999
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Bryansk
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
25 hours of community work
Bryansk Regional Court
24/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, on 30/03/2017, when the applicant was taken from his home by the police
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Bryansk Regional Court, 24/05/2017
4,000
38493/18
02/08/2018
Vladislav Yuryevich ZLOBIN
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Lipetsk
28/01/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 20 days
Lipetsk Regional Court
02/02/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 02/02/2018
3,500
41781/18
17/08/2018
Ruslan Tabrizovich SHAVEDDINOV
1996
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
12/06/2017
Rally in support of I. Golunov
Moscow
12/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
administrative detention of 9 days
Moscow City Court
26/02/2018
Moscow City Court
04/07/2019
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 03.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017,
- from 2.15 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. on 12/06/2019, while the record of the administrative offence was drawn up only on 17/06/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court,
26/02/2018 and 04/07/2019;
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 on 28/06/2019 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
4129/19
26/12/2018
Sergey Anatolyevich UKHOV
1985
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Opposition rally
Perm
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 250,000
Perm Regional Court
26/06/2018
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 12.30 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. on 10/05/2018;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Perm Regional Court, 26/06/2018
6,500
5170/19
15/01/2019
Dmitriy Andreyevih KORZHENEVSKIY
1984
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Opposition rally
Ivanovo
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Ivanovo Regional Court
17/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Ivanovo Regional Court, 17/07/2018
3,500
7466/19
22/01/2019
Daniil Andreyevich GOLOVACHEV
2000
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Rally against the pension reform
Stavropol
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 24/10/2018
3,500
8700/19
25/01/2019
Sergey Eduardovich KOMANDIROV
1995
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Opposition rally
Smolensk
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Smolensk Regional Court
26/09/2018
3,500
13423/19
25/02/2019
Yuriy Sergeyevich KUZMINYKH
1978
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Opposition rally
Yekaterinburg
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
05/09/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 05/09/2018
3,500
13752/19
01/03/2019
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna VASILYEVA
1984
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Rally against the pension reform
Omsk
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Omsk Regional Court
30/10/2018
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 03.05 p.m. to 09.00 p.m. on 09/09/2018, without any record of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty, then
- from 09.10 a.m. to 06.10 p.m. on 10/09/2018, till the hearings on the administrative-offence case;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Omsk Regional Court, 30/10/2018
4,000
19932/19
26/03/2019
Yevgeniy Valeryevich DOMOZHIROV
1974
Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich
St Petersburg
Rally against the pension reform
Vologda
05/07/2018
Rally against the pension reform
Vologda
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
administrative detention of 15 days
Vologda Regional Court
29/10/2018
Vologda Regional Court
09/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decisions: Vologda Regional Court, 09/10/2018 and 29/10/2018
5,000
25301/19
19/04/2019
Aleksey Aleksandrovich GRIGORYEV
1988
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally against the pension reform
Murmansk
01/07/2018
Rally against the pension reform
Murmansk
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 150,000
fine of
RUB 150,000
Murmansk Regional Court
21/11/2018
Murmansk Regional Court
10/12/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decisions: Murmansk Regional Court, 21/11/2018 and 10/12/2018
6,500
26255/19
08/05/2019
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SURINOV
2000
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally against the pension reform
Murmansk
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 150,000
Murmansk Regional Court
23/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Murmansk Regional Court, 23/11/2018
5,000
27384/19
08/05/2019
Viktor Vyacheslavovich LUTCHENKO
1989
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally against the pension reform
Khabarovsk
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
23/11/2018
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 02.15 p.m. to 5.50 p.m. on 9/09/2018;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Khabarovsk Regional Court, 23/11/2018
4,000
28903/19
16/05/2019
Artem Aleksandrovich KOVALEVSKIY
1991
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Rally against the pension reform
Omsk
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Omsk Region Court
04/12/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Omsk Region Court, 04/12/2018
3,500
48039/19
03/09/2019
Olga Igorevna ZHULIMOVA
1992
Rally against the pension reform
Penza
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Penza Regional Court
06/03/2019
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 12.45 a.m. on 20/09/2018 till the hearings in the applicant’s administrative-offence case on 21/09/2018
4,000
3736/20
27/12/2019
Kseniya Aleksandrovna SEREDKINA
1986
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Rostov-on-Don
10/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Rostov Regional Court
11/09/2019
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 03.00 p.m. on 10/08/2019 to the hearings on the applicant’s administrative offence case on the same day
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 11/09/2019
4,000
5140/20
10/01/2020
Olga Andreyevna GUSEVA
1995
Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich
St Petersburg
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
St Petersburg
10/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 6 days
St Petersburg City Court
16/08/2019
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 02.00 p.m. on 10/08/2019 to 03.00 a.m. on 11/08/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 16/08/2019
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
5,000
17890/20
30/03/2020
Artem Vladimirovich SAYGALOV
1996
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Bryansk
10/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Bryansk Regional Court
06/11/2019
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 9.00. a.m. on 12/09/2019 (when the applicant came back to his hometown of Bryansk) to the hearings on the applicant’s administrative‑case offence on the same day;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Bryansk Regional Court, 06/11/2019
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.