FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KADULIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 3001/18 and 11 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 September 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kadulin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 July 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). 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 5 § 1 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
8. The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).
9. In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, the Court has already found a violation in respect of the 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 on 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see 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, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), concerning disproportionate measures taken against organisers and participants in public assemblies; 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 COMPLAINTS13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers 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 acts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning unlawful detention and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the appended table, admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 5 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start date of unauthorised detention
End date of unauthorised detention
Specific defects
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
3001/18
19/12/2017
Valeriy Aleksandrovich KADULIN
1975
11/05/2016
11/05/2016
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17,
§ 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 19/06/2017.
3,000
32759/18
04/07/2018
Dmitriy Anatolyevich LYSENKO
1969
Antonova Lyudmila Petrovna
Yekaterinburg
05/08/2016,
1 p.m.
06/08/2016,
9 a.m.
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia,
nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018)
The final decision on the matter was taken by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 23/08/2018.
3,000
35471/18
30/07/2018
Andrey Yuryevich BACHURIN
1981
Prikhodkina Valeriya Yuryevna
Chelyabinsk
28/07/2018
31/07/2018
Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia,
no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)
3,000
49366/18
10/10/2018
Vadim Vilyevich KHAYRULLIN
1972
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
13/03/2018, 9.50 a.m.
13/03/2018, 3.45 p.m.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017)
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 the proceedings which ended on 26/04/2018, Kaliningrad Regional Court
4,000
30270/20
29/06/2020
Svetlana Petrovna NEVZOROVA
1970
03/03/2020
11/03/2020
Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)
3,000
33862/21
24/06/2021
Kristina Nikolayevna SIDOROVA
2001
Pryanishnikov Aleksey Aleksandrovich
Tomsk
13/03/2021
13/03/2021
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)
Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public manifestations - the applicant was arrested during her participation in a public event, Open Russia Civic Movement on 13/03/2021, convicted under Art. 20.33 of CAO, and sentenced to an administrative fine of RUB 15,000; final decision of the Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow on 20/05/2021
4,000
34922/21
20/06/2021
Vladislav Yuryevich ZLOBIN
1992
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
22/01/2021
7.05 p.m.
23/01/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 28/01/2021;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 23/01/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO;
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - Administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised public event (rally) in support to Mr A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021. Administrative detention of 10 days. Final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 28/01/2021
5,000
45158/21
21/08/2021
Vadim Igorevich ANTONOV
1980
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
14/02/2021
14/02/2021
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 24/03/2021;
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - sticking posters with calls to participate in an opposition rally on 14/02/2021 / Art. 20.2.5 of CAO / Moscow City Court, 24/03/2021
4,000
47242/21
10/09/2021
Aleksey Dmitriyevich DOROZHKIN
1986
Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna
Pskov
22/01/2021
4 p.m.
23/01/2021
2.30 p.m.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision by the Pskov Regional Court on 15/03/2021;
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Pskov, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 5 days, final decision by the Pskov Regional Court on 15/03/2021.
5,000
2546/22
20/12/2021
Aleksandr Nikolayevich NOSACHEV
1982
Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
27/02/2022
27/02/2022
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision on 17/06/2022, the Moscow City Court;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court
5,000
3801/22
24/12/2021
Eldar Aliyevich KURMAKAYEV
1989
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
21/04/2021
11 a.m.
21/04/2021
3 p.m.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Volgograd, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision Volgograd Regional Court 24/06/2021
4,000
25698/22
17/05/2022
Aleksey Olegovich KOLEGOV
1970
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
21/04/2021
23/04/2021
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Syktyvkar, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 25,000, final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 17/11/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.