FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KINZHABAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 35579/21 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 April 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kinzhabayeva 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 21 March 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.
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. 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 11 April 2024, 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 / 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]
35579/21
28/06/2021
Yuliya Nikolayevna KINZHABAYEVA
1997
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Chelyabinsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
28/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
37925/21
16/07/2021
Andrey Gennadyevich SUKHANOV
1984
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy
Volgograd
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 3.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021
4,000
38631/21
19/07/2021
Ilya Borisovich PAKHOMOV
1993
Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy
Moscow
17/01/2021
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Moscow City Court
18/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 7.35 p.m. to 10.20 p.m. on 17/01/2021, while a record of administrative offence was drawn on 22/02/2021;
- from 11.30 p.m. on 27/01/2021 to 9.30 a.m. on 28/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
40544/21
30/07/2021
Angelina Sergeyevna LEVINA
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy
Tambov
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 15 days
Tambov Regional Court
05/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
40585/21
27/07/2021
Marina Petrovna LIMAR
1987
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Rally “Free Navalnyy
Moscow, Komsomolskaya Square
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
24/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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
40677/21
25/07/2021
Galina Yevgenyevna MANENKOVA
1971
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Rally “Free Navalnyy
Smolensk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Smolensk Regional Court
10/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – detained and escorted to a court on 29/01/2021. After the applicant had voluntary come to the police station, she was escorted to the first-instance hearing in her 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
4,000
40941/21
28/07/2021
Ulyana Dmitriyevna KOLUSENKO
1993
Sotnikov Dmitriy Valeryevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Moscow City Court
11/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
41461/21
05/08/2021
Anastasiya Igorevna KRIVENKO
1999
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy
Tambov
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 7 days
Tambov Regional Court
17/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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. on 31/01/2021 to 1.50 p.m. on 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,
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
42216/21
09/08/2021
Timur Shakhinovich BABAYEV
1996
Rally “Free Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Moscow City Court
09/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
42291/21
07/08/2021
Elina Aleksandrovna PULUDI
1963
Rally “Free Navalnyy"
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
24/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 2.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case; the applicant spent 7 hours in the police van
4,000
43002/21
23/08/2021
Yaroslav Igorevich TIKHONOV
1988
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy"
Yaroslavl
23/01/2021
Rally “Free Navalnyy
Yaroslavl
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Yaroslavl Regional Court
14/05/2021
Yaroslavl Regional Court
11/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021
4,000
43449/21
23/08/2021
Tatyana Yuryevna SHISHKINA
1966
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
02/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 12.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021 in the morning,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43462/21
23/08/2021
Dmitriy Segeyevich BATALIN
1995
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Yaroslavl
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Yaroslavl Regional Court
15/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 3.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021
4,000
43771/21
23/08/2021
Roman Ramilevich NAZIROV
1995
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Tula
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tula Regional Court
02/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021, 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
4,000
43773/21
23/08/2021
Mikhail Aleksandrovich KREYNES
1987
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
16/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 31/01/2021 to 1.00 a.m. on 01/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43915/21
23/08/2021
Rasul Ayratovich MULLATAGIROV
1994
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Ufa
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic
05/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 12.50 p.m. to 3.50 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
48347/21
25/07/2021
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BYKOV
1990
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 8 days
Moscow City Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 1.20 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
5,000
49717/21
17/09/2021
Dmitriy Gennadyevich CHESNOKOV
1998
Kosnyrev Vladislav Vladimirovich
Syktyvkar
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Syktyvkar
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
17/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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. to 7.40 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
50261/21
24/09/2021
Viktor Andreyevich SPERANSKIY
1991
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
26/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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
51223/21
08/10/2021
Aleksandr Vladimirovich VELIKIY
1991
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
14/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 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 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.