FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MIKLASHEVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2107/18 and 27 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Miklashevskaya 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 30 March 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 participants or organisers 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 participants or organisers 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. 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, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018; Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, and Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 72-74 and 81-82, 5 April 2022, as to administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, there is no need to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. 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 well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 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 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 20 April 2023, 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 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]
2107/18
26/12/2017
Yelena Georgievna MIKLASHEVSKAYA
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
26/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
2199/18
26/12/2017
Roman Eldarovich GUST (BAKHTIAROV)
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
26/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
2379/18
22/12/2017
Maksim Nikolayevich KOVALENKO
1975
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
22/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
2383/18
22/12/2017
Kirill Sergeyevich KOZLOV
1994
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
22/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26-27/03/2017 detention in a police station for 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
2389/18
22/12/2017
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MARKOV
1975
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
22/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
2394/18
28/12/2017
German Romanovich KONONOV
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
28/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
2442/18
28/12/2017
Anastasiya Mikhaylovna KORSHUNKOVA
1980
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
10/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to a police station for 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
7567/18
27/01/2018
Roman Viktorovich PINAYEV
1989
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000
Moscow City Court
28/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
10846/18
26/02/2018
Igor Alekseyevich GALITSKIY
1966
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
06/10/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
12805/18
16/02/2018
Denis Viktorovich PINAYEV
1985
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000
Moscow City Court
18/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
12806/18
07/03/2018
Anton Alekseyevich YERMACHKOV
1997
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
08/09/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
13603/18
14/03/2018
Stepan Borisovich IZYURGOV
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
20/09/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
13607/18
14/03/2018
Nikita Aleksandrovich KRUCHININ
1997
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
14/09/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
16262/18
13/03/2018
Vyacheslav Nikolayevich NIKITIN
1989
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
18/09/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
16992/18
31/03/2018
Ilya Vitalyevich NAUMOV
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
02/10/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
17090/18
02/04/2018
Vasiliy Vladimirovich GOLOBOKOV
1978
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
02/10/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26-27/03/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and 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
17107/18
02/04/2018
Aleksandra Sergeyevna ALEKSEYEVA
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
LGBT-rights event
Moscow
11/05/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
02/10/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 11/05/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for 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
17476/18
04/04/2018
Anna Dmitriyevna TELNOVA
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/10/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to and detention a police station for 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
17774/18
27/03/2018
Aleksandr Rastyamovich TAGIROV
1988
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
28/09/2017
3,500
21846/18
16/04/2018
Aleksey Vadimovich TRUKHANOV
1993
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
02/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
23849/18
04/05/2018
Kirill Dmitriyevich KARPOV
1996
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Yaroslavl
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Yaroslavl Regional Court
09/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
24443/18
12/05/2018
Kamran Rustamovich DYUGUSHEV
1993
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Leafleting to support A. Navalnyy
Cherepovets
21/09/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
25 hours of community work
Vologda Regional Court
13/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
24469/18
14/05/2018
Bogdan Anatolyevich VASILENKO
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
Moscow City Court
20/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
24480/18
14/05/2018
Andrey Ivanovich ZAKHARCHENKO
1990
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
20/12/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling an offence report (which was only compiled on 15/06/2017),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
24985/18
16/05/2018
Yuriy Aleksandrovich SKRYABIN
1974
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Leafleting to support A. Navalnyy
Cherepovets
21/09/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community work
Vologda Regional Court
16/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
25873/18
21/05/2018
Semen Sergeyevich OSIPOV
1994
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Yaroslavl
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Yaroslavl Regional Court
21/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
26987/18
29/05/2018
Vyacheslav Andreyevich LOBANOV
1998
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Yaroslavl
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Yaroslavl Regional Court
30/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
10537/20
17/02/2020
Anton Yevgenyevich MALISHEVSKIY
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Moscow City Court
06/11/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.