THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KUZNETSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 31856/21 and 10 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 April 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 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. Some 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 Protocol 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 the above paragraphs, 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 complaints 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 25 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
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]
31856/21
16/06/2021
Sergey Aleksandrovich KUZNETSOV
1985
Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
08/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 3 p.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;
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
40306/21
30/07/2021
Daniil Vladimirovich NIYAKIY
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
04/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention in the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 11.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 4 p.m. on 04/02/2021;
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
40325/21
30/07/2021
Kamil Rashidovich SULTANOV
1990
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 7 days
Moscow City Court
08/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and an overnight detention in the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 1.40 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until court hearing at 4 p.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;
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
40342/21
30/07/2021
Anatoliy Andreyevich MALTSEV
1993
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 9 days
Moscow City Court
05/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to and detention in the police station from 3.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 10.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report;
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
47029/21
15/09/2021
Aleksey Valeryevich SHELEVOY
1976
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
24/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling
an offence report on 31/01/2021
5,000
57697/21
07/11/2021
Khochiakbar Numonchonovich SHARIPOV
1998
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Izzat Amon
Moscow
02/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 02/04/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
7318/22
27/01/2022
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich TKACHEV
1976
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Opposition rally
Barnaul
20/06/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Altay Regional Court
11/08/2021
3,500
8000/22
29/01/2022
Sofya Yevgenyevna BUTSYKINA
2003
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Velikiy Novgorod
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Novgorod Regional Court
12/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station at 8.20 p.m. on 21/04/2021; the offence report was compiled only 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
17907/22
25/03/2022
Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich VELICHKO
1996
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Voronezh
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Voronezh Regional Court
02/12/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.35 p.m. until 11.50 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
37745/22
15/07/2022
Roman Mikhaylovich ASHCHENKO
1981
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
18/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station on 13/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours till the court hearing on 14/03/2022;
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
49211/22
24/09/2022
Sergey Vladimirovich KHOROSHEV
1996
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
02/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
St Petersburg City Court
24/05/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.