FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KONOVALOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 10722/21 and 5 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 Konovalova 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, Acti 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). 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 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 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. The 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); 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 facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention about unlawful detention and other complaints 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]
10722/21
08/02/2021
Margarita Vitalyevna KONOVALOVA
1997
03/12/2020
21/07/2021
03/12/2020
22/07/2021
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO; 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
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 26/11/2020, 08/12/2020 and 27/07/2011, respectively. In the third set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of the failure to comply with the police officer’s lawful order and sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence imposed on the applicant was executed immediately in view of the lack of a suspensive effect of the appeal (in respect of the proceedings which ended on 08/12/2020 and 27/07/2021 respectively),
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Protest in the form of a photoshoot in public, Moscow, 14/07/2020, final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 26/11/2020, fine of RUB 10,000;
Rally against police violence, Moscow, 28/11/2020, final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 08/12/2020, 20 days’ administrative arrest
5,000
57549/21
12/11/2021
Veronika Yuryevna NIKULSHINA
1997
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
07/05/2021
16/06/2021
02/07/2021
08/05/2021
17/06/2021
03/07/2021
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO
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 two sets of the proceedings:
(1) in the first set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of failure to comply with the lawful police order (to produce an ID) and was sentenced to 5 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 12/05/2021.
(2) in the second set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of the failure to comply with the lawful police order (refusal to be taken to a police station for questioning) and sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken on 22/06/2021,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant on 08/05/2021, 17/06/2021 and 03/07/2021 by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
1873/22
21/12/2021
Anna Alekseyevna KUZMINYKH
1994
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
09/05/2021
22/06/2021
09/05/2021
23/06/2021
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; Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant on 23/06/2021 and 09/07/2021 by the Meshchanskiy and Zamoskvoretskiy District Courts of Moscow, respectively, were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - The applicant was found guilty of the failure to comply with the lawful police order (to produce an ID) and was sentenced to 15 and 10 days’ administrative arrests. The final decisions on the matter were taken by the Moscow City Court on 25/06/2021 and 27/07/2021, respectively
5,000
3387/22
27/12/2021
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich VORONTSOV
1999
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
22/06/2021
23/06/2021
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; Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO
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 both sets of the proceedings: (1) the applicant was found guilty of disturbance of peace and sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 01/07/2021;
(2) the applicant was found guilty of disturbance of peace and sentenced to 10 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 15/10/2021,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant on 23/06/2021 and 08/07/2021 by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow and Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, respectively, were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
3556/22
24/12/2021
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SOFEYEV
1987
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
22/06/2021
07/07/2021
23/06/2021
08/07/2021
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; Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of the 4, 15 and 12 days’ administrative arrest imposed on the applicant on 10/05/2021 by the Sovetskiy District Court of Tula, on 3/06/2021 by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow and on 08/07/2021 by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - In respect of all sets of the proceedings:
(1) in the first set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of petty disturbance of peace and was sentenced to 4 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Tula Regional Court on 24/06/2021;
(2) in the second set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of petty disturbance of peace and was sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 01/07/2021;
(3) in the third set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of petty disturbance of peace and was sentenced to 12 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 15/10/2021
5,000
4465/22
10/01/2022
Roman Aleksandrovich DUROV
1995
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
02/07/2021
03/07/2021
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; Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant on 03/07/2021 by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO; in these proceedings he was found guilty of refusal to obey a
policeman’s order under Art.19.3 of the CAO and sentenced to 14 days of administrative detention; final decision by the Moscow City Court, 14/07/2021.
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.