THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MESTETSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 16174/19 and 17 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 July 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mestetskiy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
Diana Kovatcheva, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 June 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 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).
9. 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 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, 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 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); Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; 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 concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. 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. 25809/17 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 Protocols 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 18 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 § 1 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
Name of the court
Date
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]
16174/19
10/03/2019
Mikhail Leonidovich MESTETSKIY
1980
Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
Moscow
02/06/2018
Support of O. Sentsov
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
10/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention- arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 02/06/2018 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
32307/19
07/06/2019
Yevgeniy Alekseyevich ZHUKOV
1998
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Kurgan
24/02/2019
Raising awareness of the consequences of President Putin’s politics for taxpayers
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 15 days
Kurgan Regional Court
10/04/2019
conviction for hiding face during a public event (see Ibragimova v. Russia, no. 68537/13, 30 August 2022)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence in respect of participation in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy held on the same date,
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 proceedings,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally in support of A. Navalnyy, Kurgan, 31/01/2021 - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, community works of 20 hours, final judgment: 16/03/2021, Kurgan Regional Court,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 02/04/2019 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of the appeal under the CAO
5,000
41196/20
10/08/2020
Marina Sergeyevna IONOVA
2000
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Kazan
26/12/2019
Support of a camp against construction of a combustion plant
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 8 days
Supreme Court of Tatarstan
26/02/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention:
(i) between 16/11/2018 and 17/11/2018 as administrative suspect, in connection with prosecution in respect of the rally of 09/09/2018, and
(ii) on 20/02/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence in respect of the events of 26/12/2019,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - first set of proceedings (final judgment of 26/02/2020),
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally against the pension reform, 09/09/2018, Kazan - arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan of 16/02/2022.
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 25/02/2020 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
2872/21
08/12/2020
Marina Anatolyevna KEN
1975
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
St Petersburg 12/03/2020
Protest against constitutional amendments
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
09/06/2020
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention:
(i) from 12/03/2020 to 13/03/2020 as administrative suspect, and
(ii) from 18/07/2020 to 19/07/2020 as administrative suspect,
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,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally against constitutional amendments, 16/07/2020, St Petersburg, conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 15 days, final judgment of 24/07/2020, St Petersburg City Court
5,000
13712/21
10/02/2021
Dzhulyeta Ramizovna MAGOMEDNABIYEVA
1982
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
Kazan
01/08/2020
Support of S. Furgal
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
community work of 20 hours
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
09/09/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
17138/21
12/03/2021
Yekaterina Yevgenyevna SURSYAKOVA
1975
Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich
Yekaterinburg
(i) Yekaterinburg
01/08/2020
Support of S. Furgal
(ii) Yekaterinburg
31/01/2021
Protest against suppression of free political expression and the authorities’ repressive politics
(iii) Yekaterinburg
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
(i) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000,
(ii) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO,
community service, of 200 hours,
(iii) article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO
fine of RUB 250,000
(i) Sverdlovsk Regional Court
11/11/2020
(ii) Sverdlovsk Regional Court
07/04/2021
(iii) Sverdlovsk Regional Court
20/04/2022
rotation - event classified as assembly post facto, (3rd set of proceedings)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 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
53091/21
08/10/2021
Mikhail Dmitriyevich MALININ
1992
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Yaroslavl
18/01/2021
Support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Yaroslavl Regional Court
12/04/2021
ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of a police station
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 proceedings,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally in support of A. Navalnyy, 23/01/2021, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Yaroslavl Regional Court, 21/06/2021
4,000
58322/21
05/11/2021
Yana Yuryevna SPATAR
1985
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Moscow
19/01/2021
Support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station on 19/01/2021 for the sole purpose to draw 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
27161/22
05/05/2022
Makar Vladimirovich SOKOLOV
1995
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Vologda
03/09/2021
Protest against the arbitrariness of the local police
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 6,000
Vologda Regional Court
08/11/2021
ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of the regional Department of Interior building
3,500
34710/22
11/07/2022
Irina Olegovna SOLODOVA
1985
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Volgograd
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Volgograd Regional Court
31/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, after 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
4,000
35417/22
11/07/2022
Darya Yuryevna KUCHERENKO
1994
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Ufa
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic
25/04/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
39555/22
30/07/2022
Roman Zosimovich ALEKSANDROV
1983
Krikun Leonid Leonidovich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
08/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 5 days
St Petersburg City Court
31/03/2022
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station between 08/03/2022 and 09/03/2022 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,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 09/03/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
41109/22
12/08/2022
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna ANDRYUSHINA
2001
Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Krasnoyarsk
26/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 2,000, and
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/04/2022
and
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
13/04/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
41116/22
12/08/2022
Anna Andreyevna SOLOVYEVA
2002
Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Krasnoyarsk
26/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 2,000,
and
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
13/04/2022
and
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
13/04/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
41434/22
18/08/2022
Alina Romanovna MALYSHEVA
2002
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Smolensk
17/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
community service of 20 hours
Smolensk Regional Court
27/04/2022
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 17/03/2022 and 19/03/2022 for drawing up an offence record and as administrative suspect,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43151/22
12/08/2022
Yuliya Igorevna VORONTSOVA
1990
Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 2 days
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
13/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station, detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 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
5,000
43533/22
20/08/2022
Mikhail Anatolyevich SLYUSAR
1993
Kosnyrev Vladislav Vladimirovich
Syktyvkar
Syktyvkar
27/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
20/04/2022
ban on public events at certain locations - in the vicinity of the court buildings
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station on 27/02/2022 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
329/23
29/11/2022
Vladimir Vladimirovich AVDONIN
1992
Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich
Samara
Samara
27/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Samara Regional Court 29/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 27/02/2022 for the scope purpose of drawing up a record of the 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.