SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GORSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 78796/17 and 23 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 September 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gorskiy 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 6 July 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 or 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.
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, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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 the 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 detention under the CAO; and Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62‑65, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised other complaints, including under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. 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 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, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints;Holds that there has been a violation 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 the 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 September 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]
78796/17
24/10/2017
Yuriy Yevgenyevich GORSKIY
1971
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally
Moscow,
12/02/2017
Labour Day rally
Moscow,
01/05/2017
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
and
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 200,000
3 days of detention
fine of RUB 1,000
Moscow City Court
12/07/2017
Moscow City Court
05/05/2017
Moscow City Court
22/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/02/2017 escorting to a police station 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 - in the case under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO (final decision on 05/05/2017 by Moscow City Court),
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - - as regards the rally on 01/05/2017 - Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution and punishment in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings
7,800
46724/18
17/09/2018
Mariya Viktorovna MAKOVOZOVA
1996
Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Opposition rally
Krasnoyarsk, 05/05/2018
Rally against the pension reform
Krasnoyarsk,
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
3 days of detention
10 days of detention
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
24/05/2018
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
12/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 04/05/2018 and 06/09/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports in relation to the rallies planned for 05/05/2018 and 09/09/2018,
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 - lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against sentence of detention - the applicant started serving the sentences of administrative detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance courts; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings do not offer suspensive effect.
5,000
52950/18
30/10/2018
Ilyas Akhmedovich MEKNASSI
1997
Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
Opposition rally
Moscow,
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
04/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 05/05/2018 escorting to a police station 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
59032/18
10/12/2018
Nikolay Viktorovich NESTEROV
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000
Moscow City Court
18/06/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report
4,000
22156/19
15/04/2019
Veronika Nikolayevna NOVOZHENOVA
1999
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Protest rally
Moscow,
06/10/2018
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
and
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
10 days of detention
12 days of detention
Moscow City Court
18/10/2018
Moscow City Court
22/10/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 16-17/10/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station in relation to an offence report compiled on 08/10/2018,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative‑offence proceedings
5,000
64952/19
18/12/2019
Vadim Sergeyevich BOYTSOV
1980
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally against road tax "Platon"
Moscow,
27/03/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/07/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
1915/20
20/12/2019
Sergey Vasilyevich SAPELNIKOV
1961
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally against road tax "Platon"
Moscow,
27/03/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
26/06/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
2355/20
19/12/2019
Antonina Vladimirovna PERSHUKOVA
1964
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Rally against a waste-plant construction
Pomodzino,
07/04/2019
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of Komi Republic
19/06/2019
3,500
3032/20
23/12/2019
Maksim Vasilyevich AVDEYEV
1988
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally against road tax "Platon"
Moscow,
27/03/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/06/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
4175/20
23/12/2019
Leonid Nikolayevich SOKOLOV
1960
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally against road tax "Platon"
Moscow,
27/03/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/06/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
6024/20
11/01/2020
Stanislav Vladimirovich GUSEV
1969
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally against road tax "Platon"
Moscow,
27/03/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/07/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
6030/20
11/01/2020
Pavel Vasilyevich LISICHKIN
1958
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally against road tax "Platon"
Moscow,
27/03/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/07/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
15062/20
12/03/2020
Ilya Aleksandrovich TKACH
1987
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
08/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/08/2019 escorting to a police station 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
17357/20
21/03/2020
Leonid Vladimirovich MOYZHES
1990
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Rally to support I. Golunov
Moscow,
12/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
18/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (it was compiled on 14/06/2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
26239/20
22/06/2020
Yevgeniy Georgiyevich BUYANIN
1974
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Public assembly
Ulan-Ude,
10/09/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Supreme Court of Buryatia Republic
21/10/2019
3,500
28139/20
26/06/2020
Denis Dmitriyevich YURCHUK
1993
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
22/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/08/2019 escorting to a police station 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
28310/20
03/07/2020
Yelena Vladimirovna IVANOVSKAYA
1978
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Moscow City Court
06/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/08/2019 escorting to a police station 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
28312/20
03/07/2020
Yevgeniy Markovich LISNEVSKIY
1975
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
22/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/08/2019 escorting to a police station 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
28777/20
03/07/2020
Petr Aleksandrovich VOLKOV
1981
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
04/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/08/2019 escorting to a police station 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
31644/20
09/07/2020
Oksana Arturovna GUSEYNOVA
1970
Artem Leonidovich SAFONOV
1992
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
(Guseynova)
fine of RUB 15,000
(Safonov)
Moscow City Court
10/10/2019
(Guseynova)
18/10/2019
(Safonov)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/08/2019 escorting both applicants to a police station for compiling offence reports,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of both applicants
4,000
to each applicant
31931/20
20/06/2020
Vladimir Sergeyevich KHRABROV
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
10/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/08/2019 escorting to a police station 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
32048/20
23/07/2020
Artem Eduardovich SHURYGIN
1992
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
12/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/08/2019 escorting to a police station 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
38533/20
14/08/2020
Leonid Leonidovich SHPAKOV
1975
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Rally to support I. Golunov
Moscow,
12/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2019 escorting to a police station 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
41336/20
19/08/2020
Vladimir Olgerdovich SMIRNOV
1982
Balog Natalya Andreyevna
Krasnoyarsk
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
20/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/08/2019 escorting to a police station 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.