FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GUKOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 39118/12 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gukovskiy 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 2 March 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 and 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.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants and an organiser (application no. 39118/12) 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.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. 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”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 21-28, 8 October 2019, related to the exercise of the right to examine witnesses in those proceedings.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, there is no need to examine (the other aspects of) the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.
13. Furthermore, some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 or the Protocols thereto. 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 CONVENTION15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 March 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 per applicant
(in euros)[1]
39118/12
08/06/2012
Igor
Petrovich GUKOVSKIY
1987
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Ms N. Morozova and others
Rally to protest against fraud during the elections to the State Duma on 04/12/2011
Moscow
05/12/2011
Article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 2,000
15 days of detention
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow
24/01/2012
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow
10/12/2011
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - a police officer, whose pre-trial written statements were used for the conviction, and two witnesses on behalf of the defence in the case under Art. 19.3 of the CAO which ended with the final decision of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 10/12/2011 (Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 21-28, 8 October 2019)
5,000,
for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the applicant;
900,
for legal costs, to be paid directly to Ms Natalya Morozova
43452/16
09/07/2016
Yuriy Valeryevich VILNID
1976
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally to support Navalnyy brothers
Moscow
30/12/2014
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000
Moscow
City Court
30/03/2016
2,000
53167/17
13/06/2017
Yuriy Vyacheslavovich TIVILEV
1991
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Tula
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
24 hours of community work
Tula
Regional Court
03/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 26/03/2017 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
53174/17
13/07/2017
Dmitriy Nikolayevich KOLESNIK
1987
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Tula
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tula
Regional Court
02/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 26/03/2017 for compiling an offence report
4,000
70352/17
07/09/2017
Andrey Aleksandrovich KISELEV
1987
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Tula
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tula
Regional Court
04/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 26/03/2017 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
70384/17
07/09/2017
Daniil
Olegovich GOZHIY
1985
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Tula
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tula
Regional Court
04/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence
4,000
70388/17
07/09/2017
Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich NIKOLAYEV
1992
Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich
Melekhovo
Anticorruption rally
Tula
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
40 hours of community work
Tule
Regional Court
03/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station on 26/03/2017 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
70391/17
07/09/2017
Irina
Igorevna NESTERYUK
1984
Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich
Melekhovo
Anticorruption manifestation
Tula
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
28 hours of community work
Tula
Regional Court
04/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 26/03/2017 for compiling an offence report
4,000
70405/17
07/09/2017
Vadim Vladimirovich RUBTSOV
1984
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow
City Court
04/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 26/03/2017 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
70447/17
07/09/2017
Aleksandr Vladimirovich SUROVOY
1991
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Bryansk
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Bryansk
Regional Court
24/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
70454/17
07/09/2017
Pavel
Yuryevich SUVOROV
1952
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg
City Court
27/06/2017
St Petersburg
City Court
26/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12‑13/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 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
78517/17
03/11/2017
Yuriy
Borisovich PEROV
1955
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Tula
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tula
Regional Court
05/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
80593/17
14/11/2017
Anton
Pavlovich KONDAKOV
1990
Sotnikov
Dmitriy Valeryevich
Balashikha
Anticorruption rally
Tula
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tula
Regional Court
15/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
2937/18
21/12/2017
Aleksandr Valeryevich FEDOROV
1994
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
6 days of detention
St Petersburg
City Court
23/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on12‑13/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva, cited above);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
3565/18
20/12/2017
Oleg
Igorevich LYTKIN
1989
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000
fine of RUB 12,000
St Petersburg
City Court
22/06/2017
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 – on 12‑13/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva, cited above)
4,000
4923/18
03/01/2018
Yevgeniy Viktorovich LAPTEV
1991
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow
City Court
06/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station on 26/03/2017 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
4925/18
03/01/2018
Andrey Yaroslavovich MENSHIKOV
1989
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
fine of RUB 3,000
St Petersburg
City Court
06/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12‑14/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva, cited above);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
5243/18
03/01/2018
Alla
Andreyevna CHERNAYA
1946
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
fine of RUB 5,000
St Petersburg
City Court
06/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12‑13/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva, cited above);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
5337/18
08/01/2018
Vladimir Nikolayevich KUZMIN
1983
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow
City Court
02/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 26/03/2017 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
7244/18
22/01/2018
Yevgeniy Borisovich KALASHNIKOV
1988
Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Kaliningrad
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
24/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 12/06/2017 for compiling an offence report
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.