FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KULAGA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 31860/21 and 9 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 May 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kulaga 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 11 April 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); 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 paragraph 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 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 14 May 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]
31860/21
16/06/2021
Aleksandr Nikolayevich KULAGA
1987
Aleksandra Nikolayevna
Bayeva
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Bryansk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Bryansk Regional Court
22/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
40314/21
30/07/2021
Aleksandr Pavlovich TARASYUK
1987
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
09/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
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
40315/21
30/07/2021
Kseniya Mikhaylovna DYABINA
1986
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
12/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
40319/21
30/07/2021
Pavel Vladimirovich KUZNETSOV
1971
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
02/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
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
45853/21
28/08/2021
Yegor Vyacheslavovich BUTAKOV
1999
Aleksey Mikhaylovich
Kychin
Arkhangelsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Arkhangelsk
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention for 15 days
Arkhangelsk Regional Court
27/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report and an overnight detention until court hearing on 22/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
46147/21
02/09/2021
Olga Aleksandrovna LOBOVA
2001
Ilya Valeryevich
Tkachenko
Gatchina
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 6 days
St Petersburg City Court
02/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
53244/21
30/09/2021
Vadim Vadimovich SHEREMETEV
1998
Yelena Anatolyevna
Mamedova
Samara
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Samara
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
detention for 9 days
Samara Regional Court
01/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 (seven days after the rally) for compiling an offence report and an overnight detention at the police station after compiling an offence report until court hearing 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,
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
59648/21
01/12/2021
Roman Yevgenyevich GODOV
1974
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of 20,000 RUB
Moscow City Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report; detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2059/22
15/12/2021
Nikita Alekseyevich BELOV
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
22/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2148/22
15/12/2021
Viktoriya Vladimirovna KOLESNIKOVA
1997
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
21/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,
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.