FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MAKSIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 47048/21 and 20 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Maksimova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 February 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, 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 in the light of its findings in Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 489, 7 February 2017, 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).
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 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 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 22 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
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 offence (code of administrative offences, CAO)
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 (in euros)[1]
47048/21
15/09/2021
Eleonora Vitalyevna MAKSIMOVA
2001
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Ufa
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic
24/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances", from 1.38 p.m. to 5.40 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 - final decision: Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, 24/03/2021.
4,000
48482/21
25/08/2021
Dmitriy Alekseyevich ZUYEV
1998
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Vladimir
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Vladimir Regional Court
15/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.10 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 25/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Vladimir Regional Court, 15/03/2021.
4,000
48590/21
15/09/2021
Vladimir Vladimirovich USACHEV
1976
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Vladimir
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Vladimir Regional Court
24/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.30 p.m. 23/01/2021 to 25/01/2021, 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 - final decision: Vladimir Regional Court, 24/03/2021.
4,000
48912/21
24/09/2021
Temir Sabitovich NURBAYEV
1989
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Pyatigorsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
31/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the 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. on 23/01/2021 to 24/01/2021, 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 - final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 31/03/2021.
4,000
49892/21
22/09/2021
Anton Romanovich DEMCHUK
2001
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
23/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the 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 an unspecified time in the evening 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 23/06/2021.
4,000
51356/21
18/09/2021
Yana Yakovlevna TSYGANKOVA
1997
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
administrative detention of 10 days
Moscow City Court
29/06/2021
Moscow City Court
14/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence:
- on 23/01/2021
- on 02/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 14/04/2021 and 29/06/2021.
5,000
51788/21
15/10/2021
Alina Aleksandrovna ALEKSEYEVA
2000
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
26/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021, to 00.30 a.m. on 24/01/2021, the applicant remained detained even after the offence report had been drawn up,
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, 26/04/2021.
4,000
51793/21
15/10/2021
Yegor Mikhaylovich KOSTIN
2021
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Voronezh
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
27/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 27/04/2021.
3,500
51935/21
15/10/2021
Erik Aleksandrovich ARTAMONOV
2001
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Tomsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tomsk Regional Court
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 - final decision: Tomsk Regional Court, 23/04/2021.
3,500
52385/21
07/10/2021
Aleksey Fedorovich KRUGLOV
1985
Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
07/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.35 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 5.00 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 - final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 07/04/2021.
4,000
52480/21
09/10/2021
Vladimir Fedorovich KOLBUNOV
1957
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Barnaul
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Altay Regional Court
15/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Altay Regional Court, 15/07/2021.
4,000
52482/21
09/10/2021
Valentina Petrovna KOLBUNOVA
1957
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Barnaul
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Altay Regional Court
15/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, 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 - final decision: Altay Regional Court, 15/07/2021.
4,000
53233/21
06/10/2021
Svetlana Azimatovna BATCHAYEVA
1997
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
23/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 02/02/2021,
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, 23/08/2021
4,000
53500/21
07/10/2021
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KISILEV
1983
Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
07/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 07/04/2021.
3,500
53788/21
21/10/2021
Nikolay Danilovich KORYAGIN
1990
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
28/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the 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. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case.
4,000
53942/21
19/10/2021
Stanislava Vadimovna LYAPINA
2002
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
21/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/07/2021.
4,000
54069/21
14/10/2021
Daniil Aleksandrovich KLESTOV
1999
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Moscow City Court
11/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, on 02/02/2021,
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, 11/05/2021.
4,000
54169/21
14/10/2021
Galina Sergeyevna YAKOVENKO
1999
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Moscow City Court
23/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 02/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 23/08/2021.
4,000
54261/21
15/10/2021
Sergey Yuryevich ANDREYEV
1981
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Moscow City Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 13/05/2021.
5,000
54267/21
15/10/2021
Vasiliy Eduardovich STRASHKO
1996
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
09/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.15 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to midnight,
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, 09/07/2021.
4,000
55306/21
23/10/2021
Mikhail Vadimovich PAKHOTNYKH
1992
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/06/2021.
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.