THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MOLIBOZHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 28046/19 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 May 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Molibozhenko and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 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 applicants were represented by Mr A. Pomazuyev, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
JURISDICTION7. 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 CONVENTION8. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 10810/15, 31 January 2017) and having due regard to the issue of compliance with the six-month period 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 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”.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. The 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 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, §§ 121-23, 10 April 2018; Kalyapin v. Russia [Committee], no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public events; and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, related to the examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal 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. 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.”
16. 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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints concerning the dispersal of the public assembly 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 deal separately with the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the public assembly;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 25 May 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
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
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]
28046/19
16/05/2019
Aleksandr Sergeyevich MOLIBOZHENKO
1995
Manifestation against Putin’s re-election
Saratov
05/05/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
10,000 Russian roubles (RUB)
Saratov Regional Court
13/12/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings.
3,500
34072/19
20/06/2019
German Aleksandrovich SEMENKO
1974
Opposition manifestation
Moscow
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
20/03/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest on 05/05/2018 and 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
34289/19
14/06/2019
Konstantin Konstantinovich SIMONOV
1989
Opposition manifestation
Moscow
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow Сity Court
22/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of grounds for administrative escorting and apprehension 05/05/2018 at 18:30; detention in excess of 3 hours.
4,000
35812/19
25/06/2019
Sergey Aleksandrovich KORSAKOV
1978
Opposition manifestation
Moscow
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
06/02/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest on 05/05/2018 and 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
45510/19
23/08/2019
Dmitriy Mikhaylovich SLATVINSKIY
1989
Opposition manifestation
Krasnoyarsk
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Krasnoyarsk Region Court
28/02/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 05/05/2018 in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings.
4,000
45518/19
20/08/2019
Sergey Sergeyevich LENKOV
1985
Manifestation against the pension reform
Ekaterinburg
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
20/02/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unjustified arrest and detention on 09/09/2018 in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings.
4,000
47250/19
23/08/2019
Yelena Petrovna PARSEGOVA
1968
Manifestation against the pension reform
St Petersburg
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
26/02/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - detention on 09/09/2018 in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings.
4,000
60094/19
05/11/2019
Ruslan Malikovich TEMIRGALIYEV
1994
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
20/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unjustified arrest on 27/07/2019; detention in excess of 3 hours to draw up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
1657/20
24/12/2019
Yelena Vladimirovna BUTOVA
1985
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Rostov-on-Don
10/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Rostov Regional Court
10/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of legal grounds for arrest and escorting to the police station on 10/08/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
17897/20
30/03/2020
Mikhail Sergeyevich NESVAT
1997
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Rostov-on-Don
10/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Rostov Regional Court
27/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unlawful (unjustified) arrest on 10/08/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
17905/20
30/03/2020
Aleksandr Anatolyevich SADKOV
1976
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
08/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
19129/20
23/03/2020
Igor Grigoryevich BELOGUROV
1990
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
10/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
30/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to a police office on 10/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
21816/20
14/04/2020
Aleksey Igorevich VASILYEV
1998
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
06/12/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - administrative arrest and detention in excess of 3 hours on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
22842/20
23/03/2020
Yelena Ivanovna TOLMACHEVA
1996
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to a police office for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours from 03/08/2019 to 04/08/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
25547/20
03/06/2020
Irina Mikhaylovna YEFREMOVA
1986
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
04/10/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
3,500
26255/20
05/06/2020
Maksim Maksimovich KHAVIN
1995
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
22/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
26436/20
05/06/2020
Polina Kirillovna GUSEVA
1995
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
28/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of any legal grounds for the applicant’s arrest and escorting to a police station on 27/07/2019; detention in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
26651/20
05/06/2020
Filipp Aleksandrovich YERMACHENKOV
1993
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
18/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
26741/20
05/06/2020
Denis Valeryevich PISKUNOV
1971
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
18/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
27354/20
25/03/2020
Vladimir Vladimirovich TORKOV
1983
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to a police office for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours, from 2:30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 6:10 p.m. on 29/07/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.