FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MATVEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 79121/17 and 12 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 June 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Matveyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 May 2023,
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. 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 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 its well-established case-law (see 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 (CAO)).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings and alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.
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 the applicants’ complaints 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 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 1 June 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
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 charges
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]
79121/17
01/11/2017
Mikhail Nikolayevich MATVEYEV
1968
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Opposition demonstration
Samara
23/04/2017
Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO
fine of
RUB 30,000
Samara Regional Court
08/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 23/04/2017, detention in excess of 3 hours
4,000
3103/18
11/12/2017
Natalya Romanovna SINYAKOVA
1997
Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich
St Petersburg
Opposition demonstration
St Petersburg
29/04/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
St Petersburg City Court
27/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
3530/18
11/12/2017
Dmitriy Anatolyevich NEGODIN
1971
Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich
St Petersburg
Opposition demonstration
St Petersburg
29/04/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
13/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest on 29/04/2017 at approximately
2.45 p.m. on 29/04/2017, brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence; released on the same day around 11.00 p.m.;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
20425/18
16/04/2018
Yanis Aleksandrovich OBLAKOV
1996
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
24/10/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 12/06/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
25022/18
10/05/2018
Oksana Petrovna VOLOBUYEVA
1973
"Free people strall" of Artpodgotovka
Tyumen
01/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Tyumen Regional Court
22/11/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 01/10/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence.
4,000
27751/18
06/06/2018
Yuliya Yevgenyevna FEDOTOVA
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally supporting A. Navalnyy’s candidacy for President
Yekaterinburg
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
06/12/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
28769/18
03/06/2018
Sergey Yevgenyevich RYZHOV
1984
Charskiy Vladimir Valentinovich
Saratov
"Opposition Walk"
Saratov
08/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
80 hours of community labour
Saratov Regional Court
04/12/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
29431/18
04/06/2018
Kirill Maksimovich BELOUSOV
1993
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
12/06/2017
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
12/03/2018
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
fine of
RUB 150,000
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
04/12/2017
Moscow City Court
14/03/2019
Moscow City Court
30/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - detention on 12/06/2017 and on 27/07/2019, both times in excess of 3 hours, and for the sole purpose of compiling a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in all three sets of administrative-offence proceedings
6,000
29540/18
08/06/2018
Mikhail Arnoldovich BUDARIN
1984
Romanov Pavel Valeryevich
Cheboksary
Manifestation against state authorities (“walk of free people”)
Cheboksary
29/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
28 hours of compulsory work
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
15/12/2017
3,500
29550/18
08/06/2018
Rustem Alfredovich GAREYEV
1960
Romanov Pavel Valeryevich
Cheboksary
Manifestation against state authorities (“walk of free people”)
Cheboksary
29/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
32 hours of compulsory work
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
12/12/2017
3,500
29555/18
08/06/2018
Sergey Yuryevich ZAKHAROV
1986
Romanov Pavel Valeryevich
Cheboksary
Manifestation against state authorities (“walk of free people”)
Cheboksary
29/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
28 hours of compulsory work
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
19/12/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 14/11/2017, escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of
3 hours
4,000
30511/18
11/06/2018
Yelena Gennadyevna VOYEVODINA
1964
Romanov Pavel Valeryevich
Cheboksary
Manifestation against state authorities (“walk of free people”)
Cheboksary
29/10/2017
Art.20.2 § 2 of CAO
32 hours compulsory service
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
12/12/2017
3,500
49810/18
10/10/2018
Oleg Sergeyevich SAVVIN
1988
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Manifestation in support of
A. Navalnyy’s candidacy for the presidential election
Kaliningrad
28/01/2018
Opposition rally
Kaliningrad
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community work
fine of
RUB 13,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
24/05/2018
Kaliningrad Regional Court
09/08/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - lack of any legal grounds for his arrest and escorting to the police station on 02/02/2018 (it appears that the purpose was to draw up a record of the administrative offence related to the events on 28/01/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.