THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 9837/18 and 15 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 January 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Malov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 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 against solo demonstrators. Some applicants 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 10 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016).
8. In the leading case of Novikova and Others v. Russia (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 432-42, 7 February 2017; Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 50-59, 30 April 2019, and Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023).
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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 interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they 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; 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 complaints12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), 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 10 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention
(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Location
Date
Purpose of the demonstration
Administrative charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Date
Name of the court
Other relevant information
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
9837/18
09/02/2018
Anatoliy Viktorovich MALOV
1980
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Kazan
08/07/2017
Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
community service of 30 hours
09/08/2017
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
11452/18
02/03/2018
Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KLEPIKOV
1983
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
08/07/2017
Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
06/09/2017
Moscow City Court
distribution of leaflets held by solo participants simultaneously at several Metro stations considered as a single group event
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
15399/18
23/03/2018
Yegor Alekseyevich ARKHAROV
1996
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
08/07/2017
Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
12/10/2017
Moscow City Court
distribution of leaflets held by solo participants simultaneously at several Metro stations considered as a single group event
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 08/07/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence
4,000
20078/19
31/03/2019
Vadim Vadimovich GLEBOV
1941
Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich
Nizhniy Novgorod
(i) Nizhniy Novgorod
02/06/2018
Support of O. Sentsov and V. Balukh
(ii) Nizhniy Novgorod
18/06/2018
Support of O. Sentsov and V. Balukh
(iii) Nizhniy Novgorod
08/08/2020
Support of Khabarovsk protesters
(i), article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
community service of 20 hours,
(ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
community service of 20 hours,
(iii), article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000
(i) 04/10/2018
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
(ii) 04/10/2018
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
(iii) 24/12/2020
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - third set of proceedings - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - all sets of proceedings
4,000
27898/19
04/05/2019
Aleksandr Viktorovich FEDOSEYEV
1990
Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich
St Petersburg
05/10/2018
St Petersburg
Protest against the appointment of a new Governor of St Petersburg
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000
22/11/2018
St Petersburg City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station, detention between 05/10/2018 and 06/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and 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
4,000
28357/19
06/05/2019
Andrey Sergeyevich NIKITIN
1999
Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
05/10/2018
Protest against the appointment of a new Governor of St Petersburg
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000
22/11/2018
St Petersburg City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 05/10/2018 and 06/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and 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
4,000
43614/19
22/08/2019
Zoya Zinovyevna NIKOLSKAYA
1956
Moscow
24/04/2019
Protest against onychectomy of cats
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
10/07/2019
Moscow City Court
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
19856/20
14/03/2020
Petr Sergeyevich DONDUKOV
1983
Lozovskaya Svetlana Valeryevna
Ulan-Ude
Soviets Square, Ulan-Ude
10/09/2019
Protest against arrests of political activists and calls to take part in a related manifestation
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
20/09/2019
Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic
4,000
41415/20
08/09/2020
Sergey Igorevich RYABOV
1992
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Tula
12/03/2020
Protest against the constitutional amendments
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 25,000
27/04/2020
Tula Regional Court
3,500
31832/21
07/06/2021
Sergey Nikolayevich ABLEYEV
2002
Ruchko Irina Yuryevna
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
25/07/2020
Support of Khabarovsk protesters
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
08/12/2020
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 25/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 31/08/2020 only)
4,000
34973/21
20/06/2021
Maksim Vladimirovich MAKEYCHIK
1991
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Kaliningrad
21/08/2020
Support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
16/02/2021
Kaliningrad Regional Court
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
35419/21
22/06/2021
Saule Kabashyevna SHAYNAZAROVA
1963
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
01/09/2020
Drawing attention to social and political problems
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
24/12/2020
Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 01/09/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3174/22
09/12/2021
Vladimir Vasilyevich DOROFEYEV
1993
Avanesyan Aleksey Viktorovich
Krasnodar
Krasnodar
30/07/2020
Protest of defrauded shareholders
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 1 day
Krasnodar Regional Court
09/08/2021
use of a quickly (de)assembled object - a tent
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful pre-trial detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention 30/07/2020 and 31/07/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence report was compiled,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
34931/22
21/06/2022
Alisa Aleksandrovna BOGATYREVA
1992
Savin Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
06/03/2022
Protest against suppression of opposition media outlets
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
18/05/2022
Stavropol Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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
4,000
38000/22
05/07/2022
Ivan Romanovich KOZIKHIN
1991
Sabirov Rim Faridovich
Kazan
Kazan
27/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
05/03/2022
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station between 27/02/2022 and 28/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after an offence report was compiled,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 28/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
40532/22
30/06/2020
Vera Petrovna TERESHONKOVA
1958
(I) Syktyvkar
01/05/2019
Protest against a ban on public events in Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar
(ii) Syktyvkar
27/02/2022
Anti-war protest
(i) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
(ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
(i) 02/10/2019
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
(ii) 20/04/2022
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of the courts’ buildings- both sets of proceedings
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station (i) on 01/05/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record, and (ii) on 27/02/2022, for the same purpose,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of administrative proceedings
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.