FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MAKHAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 38147/18 and 17 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 Makhayev 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 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 and its Protocol.
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 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 Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91‑96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, 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 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 and its Protocol, 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with regard to disproportionate measures against participants and organisers 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, related to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of an administrative detention; and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public events.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 6 of the Convention. In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Holds that the complaints under Article 5 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 raised by the applicants;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocol 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 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]
38147/18
26/07/2018
(3 applicants)
Maksim Viktorovich MAKHAYEV
1989
Anna Nikolayevna MAKHAYEVA
1993
Andrey Viktorovich PAVLOVSKIY
1976
Maryin Sergey Trofimovich
Saransk
29/01/2018, 11 a.m.
29/01/2018, 6.30 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicants remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled
3,000,
to each of the applicants
38258/18
02/08/2018
Oleg Alekseyevich ALEKSEYEV
1995
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
27/01/2018, 6.40 p.m.
29/01/2018, 2.15 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision of 02/02/2018
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for distributing flyers with calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 28/01/2018 against participation in elections; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, 02/02/2018, sentence to detention of 20 days
5,000
38657/18
02/08/2018
Nikolay Nikolayevich LYASKIN
1982
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
28/01/2018,
2 p.m.
05/05/2018, 2.20 p.m.
28/01/2018, 9.55 p.m., raised on appeal, final decision of 02/02/2018
07/05/2018, 2.18 p.m., raised on appeal, final decision on 31/05/2018
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, on 02/02/2018 and 31/05/2018,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events:
1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 28/01/2018 against elections, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, on 02/02/2018, sentence to detention of 15 days;
2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 05/05/2018 against re-election of the President, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, on 31/05/2018, sentence to detention of 10 days
5,000
2740/19
29/12/2018
Lyudmila Viktorovna ULYUFSEN
1955
Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
04/07/2018, 6.20 p.m.
09/07/2018, 8.55 p.m.
10/07/2018, 9.10 p.m.
06/07/2018, until court hearing
10/07/2018, until court hearing
11/07/2018, until court hearing
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 20/07/2018, 14/08/2018 and 18/10/2018, sentences to detention of 15 and 5 days and fine of RUB 2,500
5,000
13415/19
25/02/2019
Yuriy Sergeyevich KUZMINYKH
1978
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
09/09/2018
11/09/2018
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled; detention as an administrative suspect: 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 - final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 21/09/2018 and 27/09/2018,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 09/09/2018 against pension reform, published on Facebook; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, on 27/09/2018, sentence to detention of 30 days,
Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO on 09/09/2018, day of the unauthorised manifestation; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, on 21/09/2018, sentence of detention of 5 days,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
6,000
31922/19
29/05/2019
Stefaniya Vladimirovna VETROVA
1988
Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
09/08/2018
09/08/2018, raised on appeal, final decision on 05/02/2019
Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 05/02/2019
4,000
14908/20
07/03/2020
Nikita Vladimirovich ZAYTSEV
1997
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
23/09/2019, 6.10 p.m.
04/11/2020,
3 p.m.
02/11/2021,
8 p.m.
24/09/2019, 9.20 a.m.
05/11/2020, 2.40 p.m.
03/11/2021, 10.10 a.m.
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019, 09/11/2020 and 03/11/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 27/07/2019 in support of opposition candidates for election, published on Telegram; final decision: Moscow City Court, on 26/09/2019, sentence to detention of 15 days,
Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO for participation in unauthorised manifestation against abuses by police on 04/11/2020, final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/11/2020, sentence to detention of 15 days
5,000
31917/21
09/06/2021
Georgiy Valentinovich ALBUROV
1989
Los Vladlen Kornelevich
Vilnius
21/01/2021,
9 p.m.
22/01/2021, 2.30 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, on 26/01/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, on 26/01/2021, sentence to detention of 10 days
5,000
36731/21
07/07/2021
Vadim Leonidovich KOBZEV
1997
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
22/01/2021
23/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision on 29/01/2021
Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 29/01/2021, sentence to detention of 7 days,
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
38177/21
21/07/2021
Sofiya Yevgenyevna KAPINOSOVA
1998
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
23/01/2021, 2.30 p.m.
23/04/2021, 11.45 a.m.
24/01/2021, 12.30 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision on 02/02/2021;
23/04/2021, 4.35 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision on 27/04/2021
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - in both proceedings - final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, on 02/02/2021 and 27/04/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events:
1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, on 02/02/2021, sentence to detention of 9 days;
2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, on 27/04/2021, sentence to detention of 15 days
5,000
42344/21
31/07/2021
(3 applicants)
Tatyana Gennadyevna KOROVINA
1955
Anastasiya Alekseyevna SHVAREVA
1998
Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA
1975
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Ms Korovina:
31/01/2021, 1.50 p.m.
Ms Uvarkina
31/01/2021, 12.15 p.m.
Ms Shvareva
31/01/2021,
1 p.m.
Ms Korovina:
31/01/2021, 7.45 p.m., raised on appeal, final decision on 17/03/2021;
Ms Uvarkina
31/01/2021,
5 p.m., raised on appeal, final decision on 23/06/2021;
Ms Shvareva
31/01/2021, 10.10 p.m., raised on appeal, final decision on 23/06/2021
Applicants taken to the police station as administrative suspects: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to establish the suspects’ identity; applicants taken to the police station as administrative suspects for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort; detention as administrative suspects: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
3,000,
to each of the applicants
43402/21
02/08/2021
Anton Dmitriyevich LYKOV
1994
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
31/01/2021
01/02/2021, raised on appeal, final decision on 07/04/2021
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: 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 - final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, on 07/04/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021in support of Navalnyy published in VKontakte; final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, on 07/04/2021, sentence to detention for 5 days,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention of five days imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
49520/21
01/10/2021
Karina Mikhaylovna SHEYKINA
1988
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
31/01/2021
31/01/2021, raised on appeal, final decision on 07/04/2021
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 07/04/2021, fine of RUB 10,000
4,000
34006/22
24/06/2022
Margarita Aleksandrovna VAYNER
2002
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
25/02/2022,
5 p.m.
26/02/2022,
1 p.m., until court hearing
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, on 28/02/2022,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised anti-war protest on 25/02/2022, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, on 28/02/2022, sentence to detention of 7 days,
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
43486/22
21/08/2022
Yevgeniy Artemovich ZATEYEV
2001
Pilipenko Anastasiya Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
27/02/2022, 12.30 p.m.
28/02/2022, 11.10 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision on 21/04/2022
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: St Petersburg City Court, on 21/04/2022,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised anti-war protest on 27/02/2022, published in VKontakte; final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 21/04/2022, sentence to detention of 9 days,
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
45170/22
09/09/2022
Olga Yaroslavovna MURAVYEVA
1988
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
23/03/2022
25/03/2022, until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision on 11/05/2022
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, on 11/05/2022,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate restriction of her freedom of expression on account of her conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for having issued on 07/03/2022 on Youtube a video "No war. Appeal to women" considered by the authorities as constituting a call to participate in the Anti-war rally on 08/03/2022; final decision: Moscow City Court, 11/05/2022, fine of RUB 20,000
4,000
47684/22
16/09/2022
Irina Mikhaylovna KUZMINA
1979
Malinina Yuliya Valeryevna
Moscow
17/02/2022, 03.40 p.m.
17/02/2022, 08.25 p.m., raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/07/2022, fine of RUB 10,000
4,000
34239/23
16/09/2021
Kirill Aleksandrovich SONIN
1997
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
31/01/2021
01/02/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: 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 - final decision: Rostov Regional Court, on 31/03/2021, fine of RUB 10,000
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.