SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KAPRANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 81852/17 and 21 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kapranov 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 9 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 disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies in Moscow. They 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 of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by 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 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”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. The 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.
12. 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 its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-23, 10 April 2018, Kalyapin v. Russia, no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events; and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, related to examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)).
Remaning COMPLAINTS13. Having regard to its findings above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings in their cases.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, 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;Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (as indicated in the appended table) admissible and decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about other aspects of the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings;Holds that these applications 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 March 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
Date
Administrative charges
Penalty
Final decision
Moscow City Court
Date
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
81852/17
22/11/2017
and
11048/20
07/02/2020
Denis Vasilyevich KAPRANOV
1981
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
26/03/2017
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
fine of RUB 10,000
23/05/2017
04/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) – two counts of 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”:
1) From 4.40 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. on 26/03/2017, the time indicated in the records was at variance with the actual time of escorting and detention,
2) From 2.45 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019; the record of administrative offence was only drawn up on 06/08/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – two final decisions: Moscow City Court, 23/05/2017 and 04/10/2019
5,000
60695/19
08/11/2019
Nikolay Aleksandrovich CHUDAYEV
1994
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
30/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 4.00 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. on 27/07/2019, while the record of administrative offence was only drawn up on 29/07/2019; absence of escorting report and no indication of the time of escorting to the police station and of the time of release;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 30/08/2019
4,000
65169/19
18/12/2019
Vladimir Petrovich KULESHOV
1986
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
04/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 2.05 p.m. to 10.05 p.m. on 03/08/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 04/09/2019
4,000
65185/19
18/12/2019
Anastasiya Yuryevna SHUKSHINA
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
24/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 3.40 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 24/09/2019
4,000
10981/20
07/02/2020
Stanislav Sergeyevich ALKHASOV
1990
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
14/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 3.45 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 3.30 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the applicant spent more than 5 hours in the police van before having been brought to the police station; the record of administrative offence was only drawn up on 06/08/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 14/10/2019
4,000
11436/20
07/02/2020
Yaroslav Igorevich VIRCHIK
1993
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
24/10/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019
3,500
14102/20
20/02/2020
Anastasiya Leonidovna ZYUBINA
1995
Balog Natalya Andreyevna
Krasnoyarsk
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
22/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 4.48 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 2.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the escorting report was at variance with the actual time of the escorting;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 22/10/2019
4,000
15295/20
11/03/2020
Sergey Aleksandrovich TURUSHIN
1986
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
12/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (the applicant was escorted at 5.45 p.m. on 03/08/2019);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 12/09/2019
4,000
17826/20
30/03/2020
Aleksandra Yuryevna POLYAK
1970
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
24/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 3.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019
4,000
17829/20
30/03/2020
Aleksandr Sergovich YEFREMOV
1999
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
12/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 7.30 p.m. to 9.04 p.m. on 03/08/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 12/11/2019
4,000
17831/20
30/03/2020
Pavel Anatolyevich PONOMAREV
1977
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
14/01/2020
Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 2.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the applicant spent more than 3 hours in the police van before having been brought to the police station;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 14/01/2020
4,000
17832/20
30/03/2020
Maksim Aleksandrovich MOSHCHENKO
1998
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
06/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 3.50 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019; absence of an arrest report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 06/11/2019
4,000
17833/20
30/03/2020
Aleksandr Vladimirovich ZABROVSKIY
1999
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
28/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 3.50 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 00.40 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the record of the administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019; absence of an arrest report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 28/11/2019
4,000
17835/20
30/03/2020
Kirill Alekseyevich MARTYNENKO
1995
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
28/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.35 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 02.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019; absence of an arrest report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 28/11/2019
4,000
17888/20
30/03/2020
Natalya Aleksandrovna SAVOSTINA
1976
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
18/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.30 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 02.20 a.m. on 04/08/2019; absence of an arrest report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 18/10/2019
4,000
18155/20
11/03/2020
Sergey Alekseyevich YERMOLAYEV
1987
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
16/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.00 p.m. to 11.10 p.m. on 03/08/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 16/09/2019
4,000
19121/20
23/03/2020
Oleg Ravilyevich SABITOV
1994
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
10/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 4.15 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019; the record of administrative offence was only drawn up on 06/08/2019; absence of an arrest report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 10/10/2019
4,000
19124/20
23/03/2020
Vadim Yevgenyevich BOLSHAKOV
1990
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
30/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 3.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019; absence of an arrest report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 30/10/2019
4,000
19556/20
23/03/2020
Kirill Dmitriyevich BALAK
1995
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
28/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 2.40 p.m. to 10.20 p.m. on 03/08/2019; the record of administrative offence was only drawn up on 06/08/2019; absence of an arrest report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 28/10/2019
4,000
19770/20
25/03/2020
Irina Aleksandrovna SISEYKINA
1975
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
02/12/2019
Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.30 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.20 a.m. on 04/08/2019; absence of an arrest report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 02/12/2019
4,000
32043/20
23/07/2020
Yevgeniy Romanovich DEGTYAREV
1985
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
16/12/2019
Art. 5 (1) - 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 8.00 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 7.00 p.m. on 29/07/2019, the applicant remained in detention even after the record of administrative offence was drawn up, on 28/07/2018;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision:
Moscow City Court, 16/12/2019
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.