FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KARIMULLINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 45351/21 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Karimullina 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 6 June 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 its Protocols.
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 and its Protocols 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. The 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 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); 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 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 10‑11 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 these applications 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 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 27 June 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 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 / criminal 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 per applicant
(in euros)
[1]
45351/21
11/08/2021
Gulshat Ranifovna KARIMULLINA
1997
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
31/03/2021
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 1.40 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 8.25 p.m. on 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case
4,000
58773/21
19/11/2021
Elvira Olegovna MESHCHERYAKOVA
2002
Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 18,000
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; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.40 p.m. to 11.30 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
4,000
60225/21
24/11/2021
Vladimir Vladimirovich BREDIKHIN
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
11/06/2021
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 11.18 a.m. to 7.10 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
4,000
61039/21
20/11/2021
Gleb Borisovich ZEMSKOV
1995
Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
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; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.30 p.m. to 10.00 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
4,000
915/22
06/12/2021
Veronika Alekseyevna OSHCHEPKOVA
2001
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Velikiy Novgorod
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community works
Novgorod Regional Court
17/06/2021
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 8.23 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021, while the said record was drawn up on 23/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
1130/22
17/12/2021
Nadezhda Nikolayevna BATULKINA
1970
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
17/06/2021
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 12.00 a.m. until 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
4,000
2018/22
13/12/2021
Vadim Andreyevich MUNTAYKIN
2002
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Stavropol
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention for 10 days
Stavropol Regional Court
16/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, on 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,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
2023/22
13/12/2021
Vladislav Olegovich KIRICHENKO
1985
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Stavropol
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
20/10/2021
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 1.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021, while the said record was drawn up only on 16/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2126/22
06/12/2021
Nikita Andreyevich BARYKIN
1992
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Saratov
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Saratov Regional Court
07/06/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
2463/22
06/12/2021
Anastasiya Valeryevna ALEKSEYEVA
1988
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
16/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, on 23/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2501/22
06/12/2021
Olga Konstantinovna ORLOVA
2002
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
10/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, on 24/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceeding
4,000
2508/22
06/12/2021
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich AGAFONOV
1992
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
23/01/2023
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
04/08/2021
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
4,000
9068/22
03/02/2022
Sergey Sergeyevich KULIKOV
1993
Valenkov Andrey Olegovich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
04/08/2021
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 12.20 p.m. to 9.30 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
4,000
11782/22
31/01/2022
Maksim Dmitriyevich GRIGORYEV
1987
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
03/08/2021
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
4,000
12059/22
11/02/2022
Nadezhda Vladimirovna ZANINA
1974
Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
11/08/2021
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 1.30 p.m. to at least 9.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021; the applicant spent 2h20 in the police van,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
13231/22
19/01/2022
Daniil Semenovich SEMENOV
1998
Kochenkov Viktor Valeryevich
Izhevsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Izhevsk
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic
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 8.00 to 11.30 p.m. 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
4,000
17009/22
24/02/2022
Islomidin Kadridinovich SADULOYEV
1989
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Izzat Amon
Moscow
02/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
25/08/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
17048/22
24/02/2022
Mirzonaim Saidamanovich BOBOYEV
2000
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Izzat Amon
Moscow
02/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
27/08/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
18232/22
02/03/2022
Andrey Aleksandrovich MEZENTSEV
1976
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
13/09/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
18590/22
14/03/2022
Manuchakhr Khasanovich BURIYEV
2000
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Izzat Amon
Moscow
02/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
15/09/2021
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 3.00 p.m. on 02/04/2021 to 11.00 p.m. on 04/04/2021,
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.