SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GUSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 33633/21 and 21 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 March 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gusev 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 15 February 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 and Protocols to it.
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 Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 489, 7 February 2017, 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 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 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 the 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 applications 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 14 March 2024, 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 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 (in euros)[1]
33633/21
25/05/2021
Konstantin Viktorovich GUSEV
1977
Savin Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Pyatigorsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Stavropol Regional Court
11/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 11/02/2021,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
41987/21
01/08/2021
Dmitriy Andreyevich KONOSHONKIN
1996
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention of
8 days
Moscow City Court
18/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 11.00 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 12.30 p.m. on 03/02/2021
5,000
49534/21
16/09/2021
Stanislav Vladimirovich SHANTALIN
1996
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
06/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/04/2021
4,000
50403/21
22/09/2021
Ivan Aleksandrovich NAKONECHNYY
1993
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
28/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/04/2021
4,000
50418/21
21/09/2021
Pavel Vladimirovich KRASNOV
1973
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
28/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/04/2021
4,000
50852/21
08/10/2021
Aleksandr Alekseyevich BELKOV
1994
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
16/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.20 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. on 02/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 16/04/2021
4,000
52339/21
22/09/2021
Nikolay Viktorovich BELYAYEV
1974
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
21/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, on 02/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/05/2021
4,000
55323/21
23/10/2021
Denis Olegovich POPOV
1994
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
03/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 03/06/2021
4,000
55334/21
23/10/2021
Andrey Vladimirovich KHABAROV
1998
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
23/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 23/06/2021
4,000
55543/21
23/10/2021
Svetlana Azamatovna BATCHAYEVA
1997
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
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 deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/05/2021
4,000
56301/21
15/11/2021
Galina Grigoryevna KARPENKO
1953
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Vladivostok
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Primorye Regional Court
25/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.40 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. 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 - final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 25/05/2021
4,000
56419/21
23/10/2021
Mikhail Andreyevich BORZUNOV
1988
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/06/2021
4,000
56421/21
23/10/2021
Anton Vladimirovich KRUGLOV
1987
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
03/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 03/06/2021
4,000
56422/21
23/10/2021
Aleksey Nikolayevich VORONOV
1988
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
19/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/05/2021
4,000
57359/21
29/10/2021
Alena Nikolayevna RYABOVA
1999
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of
5 days
Moscow City Court
27/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.00 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/05/2021
5,000
57370/21
29/10/2021
Yekaterina Viktorovna SOKOLOVA
1966
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
25/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.00 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 25/05/2021
4,000
57569/21
07/11/2021
Toirdzhon Kurbonaliyevich SATTOROV
1999
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Izzat Amono (human rights activist)
Moscow
02/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, on 02/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 13/07/2021.
4,000
59060/21
27/11/2021
Yevgeniy Andreyevich ZUBKOV
1994
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Volgograd
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Volgograd Regional Court
02/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 9.00 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 00.05 a.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 - final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 02/06/2021.
4,000
59087/21
19/11/2021
Andrey Dmitriyevich BOYKO
1994
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Kurgan
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
community works of
30 hours
Kurgan Reginal Court
26/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Kurgan Reginal Court, 26/05/2021
4,000
59138/21
27/11/2021
Yevgeniy Semenovich KIRILLOV
1990
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Nizhnekamsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
02/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, on 23/01/2021
4,000
59227/21
27/11/2021
Dmitriy Eduardovich KRIVOSHEIN
1988
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Perm
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
04/06/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Perm Regional Court, 04/06/2021
3,500
61686/21
08/12/2021
Konstantin Sergeyevich ULYANOV
1989
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
19/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.55 p.m. to 8.30 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/07/2021
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.