FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF GOLIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 44131/18 and 12 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Golikov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Stephane Pisani, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 June 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. 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.
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); Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; and 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 further raised additional complaints under the provisions of the Convention concerning other aspects of the administrative‑offence proceedings and effects of the administrative convictions. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 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 raised by the applicants under the Convention;Holds that there has been 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 27 June 2024, 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 / criminal offence
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]
44131/18
29/08/2018
Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich GOLIKOV
1970
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Ani Mesropovna Agagyulyan
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
03/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on
(1) 12/06/2017, between 2.25 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. and
(2) between 3.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 and 1.30 a.m. on 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 - both sets of proceedings,
Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO for having participated in unauthorised public event on 12/06/2017 in Moscow and for having worn a tee-shirt with a slogan offensive to the President of the Russian Federation, penalty of RUB 15,000, final decision by the Moscow City Court on 06/03/2018.
4,000
46935/21
01/09/2021
Maksim Yevgenyevich KLIMOV
1992
Tkachenko Nikita Nikolayevich
Belgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Belgorod
23/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Belgorod
21/04/2021
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention of 9 days
detention for 25 days
Belgorod Regional Court
01/03/2021
Belgorod Regional Court
27/04/2021
5,000
47391/21
16/09/2021
Ignatiy Vitalyevich KUPTSOV
1988
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Tomsk
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Tomsk Regional Court
18/03/2021
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO for having published on his page "VKontakte" calls for participation in a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Tomsk, penalty detention for 25 days, final decision by the Tomsk Regional Court on 04/05/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings.
5,000
49531/21
16/09/2021
Angelina Nikolayevna YUGANOVA
1972
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 200,000
Moscow City Court
26/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
49598/21
21/09/2021
Vsevolod Aleksandrovich ZAYTSEV
2002
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
21/04/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
detention for 20 days
Moscow City Court
23/08/2021
Moscow City Court
28/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 and 25/04/2021 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 - both sets of proceedings.
5,000
51076/21
01/10/2021
Natalya Gennadyevna CHEKHLENKO
1963
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Blagoveshchensk
23/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Amur Regional Court
01/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 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
52247/21
01/10/2021
Ilya Valeryevich AKSENOV
2001
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
23/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
02/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021, between 3.30 p.m. and 00.00,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
52263/21
11/10/2021
Lev Markovich SHLOSBERG
1963
Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna
Pskov
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Pskov
23/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Pskov Regional Court
12/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021 (several hours),
.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
54907/21
12/10/2021
Anastasiya Alekseyevna SHVAREVA
1998
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Syktyvkar
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
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.
3,500
60617/21
16/11/2021
Olga Nikolayevna VOLKOVA
1980
Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
Novorossiysk
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Anapa
23/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
17/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
61779/21
03/12/2021
Sergey Sergeyevich OSTRIKOV
1991
Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich
Voronezh
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh
23/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
30/08/2021
Voronezh Regional Court
04/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on (1) 23/01/2021 between 4.40 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. and (2) on 31/01/2021 between 12.40 p.m. and 4.15 p.m.,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings.
4,000
3320/22
22/12/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich KNYAZEV
1995
Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich
Voronezh
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh
31/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh
21/04/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
23/06/2021
Voronezh Regional Court
19/10/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on
(1) 31/01/2021, between 2.00 p.m. and 9.50 p.m. and
(2) 21/04/2021, between 7.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m.,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings.
4,000
33740/22
04/06/2022
Yuliya Vyacheslavovna KUMIROVA
1996
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
21/04/2021
Anti-war rally
Moscow
02/03/2022
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
17/12/2021
Moscow City Court
11/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report between 7.30 p.m. on 02/03/2022 and 7.30 p.m. on 04/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.