THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MOLIBOGA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 48859/16 and 14 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 Moliboga 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 § 1 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators, namely the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 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 cases of Novikova and Others, 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, 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 § 1 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; and 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 COMPLAINTS12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the 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, in particular, 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 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measure against solo demonstrators and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;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 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
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]
48859/16
09/08/2016
Kseniya Grigoryevna MOLIBOGA
1997
Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich
Voronezh
Voronezh
19/11/2015
protest against malfunctioning of a local university (wearing a mask with a skull picture)
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 5,000
09/02/2016
Voronezh Regional Court
3,500
21830/18
19/04/2018
Pavel Aleksandrovich NOVICHENKO
1990
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Perm
22/09/2017
solo demonstration in support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
19/10/2017
Perm Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6.50 p.m. on 22/09/2017 until 11.00 p.m. on 23/09/2017; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others,
§§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
42078/18
24/08/2018
Konstantin Yaroslavovich YURLOV
1991
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Moscow
08/07/2017
distributing leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 15,000
28/02/2018
Moscow City Court
FIFA Confederations CUP restrictions (ban on holding public events on 01/06-12/07/2017)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
44110/18
30/08/2018
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich PETROV
1999
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Cherepovets
16/06/2017
solo demonstration in support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
05/03/2018
Vologda 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
49338/18
10/10/2018
Anna Pavlovna YANTSEVA
1998
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Moscow
08/07/2017
distributing 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
22/06/2018
Moscow City Court
FIFA Confederations CUP restrictions (ban on holding public events on 01/06-12/07/2017)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - applicant taken to the police station on 08/07/2017 as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications,
§ 35, 2 July 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
6336/19
04/01/2019
Oleg Sergeyevich SAVVIN
1988
Bontsler Mariya Vladimirovna
Kaliningrad
Kaliningrad
01/06/2018
solo demonstration in support of O. Sentsov
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
26/07/2018
Kaliningrad Regional Court
FIFA Confederations CUP restrictions (ban on holding public events on 01/06-12/07/2017)
3,500
8791/19
23/01/2019
Kamil Faritovich GATAULLIN
1997
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Kazan
01/06/2018
solo demonstration in support of O. Sentsov
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO, community service,
20 hours
25/07/2018
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018)
3,500
13507/19
25/02/2019
Androik Aramovich ARTYNOV
1988
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Moscow
08/06/2018
protest against FIFA fan festivals
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO,
fine of RUB 20,000
28/08/2018
Moscow City Court
FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
14669/19
04/03/2019
Andrey Igorevich KISELEV
1992
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Moscow
22/06/2018
support of political prisoners ("Novoye Velichiye" case),
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 20,000
04/09/2018
Moscow City Court
FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 7.00 p.m. on 22/06/2018; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others,
§§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
18545/19
20/03/2019
Valeriy Petrovich KUZMENKOV
1961
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Moscow
31/05/2018
protest against construction works on "Krasnaya Strela" stadium
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
20/09/2018
Moscow City Court
FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/05/2018; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others,
§§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
21186/19
07/04/2019
Mark Yevgenyevich NEMTSEV
1984
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
23/06/2018
protest against pension reform
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
25/10/2018
Samara Regional Court
FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
29373/19
14/05/2019
Anton Gennadyevich SUSHKEVICH
1970
Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
Moscow
28/05/2018
solo demonstration in support of O. Sentsov
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 15,000
14/11/2018
Moscow City Court
FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 28/05/2018 for compiling an offence report; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
32446/19
16/05/2019
Valeriya Ivanovna SKOROBOGATOVA
1970
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Moscow
01/07/2018
protest against pension reform
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
16/11/2018
Moscow City Court
FIFA World Championship restrictions (ban on holding public events on 25/05-25/07/2018)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 01/07/2018; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications,
§ 35, 2 July 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
48507/19
12/09/2019
Polina Valeryevna SIZOVA
1997
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
07/10/2018
protest against torture in Russia
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
12/03/2019
Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. until 9.05 p.m. on 07/10/2018; applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and
8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: unacknowledged detention in so far as escorting time is not included in the overall length of the administrative detention (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 95, 4 December 2014); Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
18832/23
14/04/2023
Vadim Igorevich KOROLEV
1986
(i) 27/02/2022
Moscow
Anti-war protest
(ii) 06/03/2022
Moscow
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000, (conviction on 15/12/2022)
article 20.2. § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 20,000, (conviction on 01/03/2023)
(i) 01/03/2023
Moscow City Court (protest of 27/02/2022)
(ii) 15/12/2022
Moscow City Court (protest of 06/03/2022)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling of offence report:
(i) from 6.00 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 1.00 a.m. on 28/02/2022;
(ii) from 2.55 p.m. until 9.25 p.m. on 06/03/2022
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.