THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GENERALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 57870/21 and 17 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Generalov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 January 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. They 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); Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further complaints under Article 6 of the Convention alleging various aspects of unfairness of the administrative offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraph 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. 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 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 8 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
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 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]
57870/21
08/11/2021
Vadim Aleksandrovich GENERALOV
1991
Veronika Yuryevna Karagodina
St Petersburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
22/06/2021
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 the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report
4,000
57961/21
18/11/2021
Irina Andreyevna MAKSIMOVA
1995
Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
21/05/2021
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 the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report
4,000
58136/21
11/10/2021
Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich KALENKOVICH
1988
Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 23/01/2021 until 25/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
58252/21
18/11/2021
Pavel Alekseyevich SHAPOSHNIKOV
1990
Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
19/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for 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
59678/21
18/11/2021
Vladislav Vladimirovich ISAK
1985
Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
25/05/2021
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 and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 02/02/2021
4,000
60770/21
07/12/2021
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich RUDENKO
1991
Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Perm
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
10/06/2021
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 the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report
4,000
61175/21
23/11/2021
Aleksey Valeryevich VINNIKOV
2001
Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin
Velikiy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
05/07/2021
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 the police station on 02/02/2021 for compiling an offence report
4,000
61237/21
21/11/2021
Dmitriy Mikhaylovich PETRIK
1989
Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina
Novorossiysk
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Novorossiysk
21/04/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
detention of 5 days
Krasnodar Regional Court
23/06/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
61339/21
21/11/2021
Lyubov Nikolayevna PARYGINA
1999
Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina
Novorossiysk
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Anapa
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RU 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
30/06/2021
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 the police station on 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report
4,000
61359/21
01/11/2021
Maksim Yuryevich BANYAYEV
1989
Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin
Strasbourg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
23/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
detention of 5 days
Moscow City Court
29/09/2021
Moscow City Court
21/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention:
1) escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report;
2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.20 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 2.30 p.m. on 03/02/2021,
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,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
6,000
61531/21
06/12/2021
Kseniya Alekseyevna MAZUROVA
2002
Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin
Velikiy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Velikiy Novgorod
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community work
Novgorod Regional Court
15/06/2021
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 the police station on 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report
4,000
61752/21
21/11/2021
Aleksandr Alekseyevich ANTONOV
1994
Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina
Novorossiysk
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Novorossiysk
21/04/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
detention of 5 days
Krasnodar Regional Court
28/06/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
61776/21
21/11/2021
Yekaterina Anatolyevna LAKHTIKOVA
1983
Roman Yevgenyevich Kachanov
Yekaterinburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Ekaterinburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
27/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for 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
11758/23
02/03/2023
Lyubov Aleksandrovna PLOSHKINA
1999
Anti-war protest
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
03/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
12162/23
25/02/2023
Yekaterina Andreyevna ZHILINA
1989
Natalya Andreyevna Baranova
Moscow
Anti-war protest
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
25/10/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
12463/23
03/03/2023
Yekaterina Yevgenyevna ABAYEVA-GILDEBRAND
1999
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
03/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
13472/23
13/02/2023
Marina Yuryevna LYUBIMOVA
1974
Anti-war protest
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/10/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 13/03/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
14243/23
16/03/2023
Anastasiya Romanovna ANDRYUSHCHENKO
Anti-war protest
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
21/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.