SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GALIMULLIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 54923/21 and 24 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 December 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Galimullin 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 16 November 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 applicants were represented by Mr Ivan Zhdanov, a lawyer admitted to practice in Russia.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of nationwide protests in support of the jailed opposition leader, Aleksey Navalnyy. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.JURISDICTION
7. 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 CONVENTION
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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”.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
13. 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.
14. 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 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; 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.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
15. 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 paragraphs 12 and 14 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
16. The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants 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. 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 CONVENTION
17. 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 dismisses the remainder of the applications as inadmissible;Holds that there has been a breach of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants;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 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 7 December 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
Location and date of the public event
Administrative charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]
54923/21
29/10/2021
Insaf Vasilevich GALIMULLIN
1996
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
12/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention
- escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.35 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until the court hearing on 01/02/2021.
4,000
55718/21
05/11/2021
Danil Sergeyevich KASULIN
2002
Tver
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tver Regional Court
19/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
55754/21
05/11/2021
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SOLOKHA
2002
Voronezh
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
55892/21
05/11/2021
Denis Vladimirovich MUKHOROTOV
2000
Voronezh
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
18/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.11 p.m. until 10.15 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.
4,000
55987/21
05/11/2021
Sana Aleksandrovna BEZMENOVA
1975
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
19/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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.
4,000
55990/21
05/11/2021
Petr Borisovich KARTOYEV
1991
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 11,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
12/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021;
4,000
55995/21
05/11/2021
Vadim Andreyevich GORYACHENKO
2003
Novosibirsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
14/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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.
4,000
56954/21
19/11/2021
Yekaterina Valeryevna MALYUTINA
1990
Vladimir
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 11,000
Vladimir Regional Court
07/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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.
4,000
58315/21
27/11/2021
Maksim Anatolyevich KOLBIN
1985
Perm
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
22/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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.
4,000
58526/21
09/11/2021
Larisa Igorevna BESH
1962
Kurgan
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Kurgan Regional Court
24/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
58653/21
19/11/2021
Ildar Gumarovich MEYKER
1990
Kazan
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
26/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021
4,000
58692/21
19/11/2021
Konstantin Aleksandrovich LYAYFER
1984
Saratov
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Saratov Regional Court
24/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
58846/21
27/11/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich SNURNIKOV
1981
Chelyabinsk
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
58864/21
27/11/2021
Vitaliy Vasilyevich TYUTIKOV
2002
Kazan
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021.
4,000
58905/21
27/11/2021
Andrey Aleksandrovich MEKHONOSHIN
1985
Perm
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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.
4,000
59002/21
27/11/2021
Yekaterina Glebovna BARYSHKINA
2002
Kazan
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
02/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 5.20 p.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
59054/21
27/11/2021
Andrey Konstantinovich DEDKOV
1996
Volgograd
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Volgograd Regional Court
03/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
59068/21
27/11/2021
Andrey Sergeyevich KOZINSKIY
1988
Orenburg
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Orenburg Regional Court
21/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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.
4,000
59071/21
27/11/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich SHUMOV
1986
Pushkin
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow Regional Court
29/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
59145/21
27/11/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich PORUBOV
1966
Khabarovsk
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
08/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
59160/21
27/11/2021
Kirill Alekseyevich KUSHIN
2001
Perm
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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.
4,000
59981/21
03/12/2021
Ivan Viktorovich DROBOTOV
1995
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
21/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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.
4,000
60180/21
03/12/2021
Yekaterina Dmitriyevna MAYEVSKYA
1996
Khabarovsk
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
21/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021.
4,000
60821/21
07/12/2021
Kirill Andreyevich BELOUS
1997
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.30 p.m. on
02/02/2021 until 6.45 a.m. on 03/02/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
61719/21
08/12/2021
Vladislav Aleksandrovich SPIVAKOV
2002
Ufa
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic
19/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy