FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MIZILIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 50064/18 and 26 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 Mizilin 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 participants of nationwide protests that took place in various Russian cities on 5 May 2018 before Vladimir Putin’s inauguration for the fourth presidential term. 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 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 Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 61-65, 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 COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
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 Articles 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 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 the 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
Location of the public event
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]
50064/18
10/10/2018
Igor Aleksandrovich MIZILIN
1990
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Voronezh
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
19/06/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
54135/18
02/11/2018
Alisa
Dmitriyevna MASLOVA
1998
Antokhin
Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow
City Court
18/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.50 p.m., brought to the police station at 5.30 p.m. and released at 11.40 p.m. on 05/05/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
6674/19
21/01/2019
Alla
Nikolayevna NOVICHENKO
1968
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Ivanovo
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Ivanovo Regional Court
21/08/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
6719/19
21/01/2019
Petr
Ivanovich
ZUEV
1946
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Kaliningrad
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
40 hours of community work
Kaliningrad Regional Court
16/08/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO.
3,500
6730/19
21/01/2019
Anton Aleksandrovich SEMENOV
1995
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Moscow
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 1,000
Moscow
City Court
06/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to and detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 3.50 p.m. and brought to the police station at 4.50 p.m. on 05/05/2018, released at 8 a.m. on 07/05/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO.
4,000
6949/19
21/01/2019
Oleg
Viktorovich KISELEV
1976
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Vladimir
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Vladimir Regional Court
04/09/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
6975/19
21/01/2019
Aleksey Andreyevich IZMAYLOV
1998
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Vladimir
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Vladimir Regional Court
04/09/2018
3,500
7043/19
21/01/2019
Artem Alekseyevich GORDEYEV
1979
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Saratov
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 13,000
Saratov Regional Court
23/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
7335/19
21/01/2019
Talgat
Ulfatovich SADYKOV
1957
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Smolensk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Smolensk Regional Court
08/08/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
7391/19
21/01/2019
Ivan
Dmitriyevich MISHUTIN
1990
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Moscow
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 1,000
Moscow
City Court
12/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 6.45 p.m., brought to the police station at 7.05 p.m. on 05/05/2018; released at 12.05 a.m. on 06/05/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO.
4,000
7394/19
21/01/2019
Darya
Dmitriyevna NOSOVA
1999
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Vladimir
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Vladimir Regional Court
11/09/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
7419/19
21/01/2019
Lyubov Vladimirovna RUBLEVA
1978
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Vladimir
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Vladimir Regional Court
06/09/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
7421/19
21/01/2019
Tatyana
Petrovna BOZHENOVA
1957
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Kaliningrad
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
06/09/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
7694/19
22/01/2019
Dmitriy Andreyevich SVITNEV
1996
Popkov
Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Krasnodar
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
25/07/2018
3,500
7697/19
22/01/2019
Nikolay Sergeyevich SAPRYKIN
1984
Popkov
Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Krasnodar
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
31/07/2018
3,500
7831/19
16/01/2019
Khachatur Vitalyevich KUCHYUKYAN
1992
Vasin
Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Krasnoyarsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
35 hours of community work
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
19/07/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2.30 p.m., brought to the police station at 3.15 p.m., released at 6 p.m. on 05/05/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
8221/19
21/01/2019
Sergey Leonidovich KUKHARETS
1993
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Vladimir
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Vladimir Regional Court
11/09/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
8235/19
21/01/2019
Mariya Gennadyevna PETUKHOVA
1984
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Kaliningrad
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 200,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
09/08/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO.
6,000
8796/19
21/01/2019
Andrey Vladimirovich BUGAYEV
1996
Zhdanov
Ivan
Yuryevich
Vilnius
Krasnoyarsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
35 hours of community work
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
20/09/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
8810/19
30/01/2019
Svyatoslav Igorevich ZISMAN-MALER
1986
Nisanbekova
Elza
Rinatovna
Kazan
Moscow
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow
City Court
30/07/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to and detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 2.40 p.m., brought to the police station at 3 p.m. on 05/05/2018; released at 10 a.m. on 07/05/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO.
4,000
8891/19
01/02/2019
Ilya
Yevgenyevich ZHILTSOV
1993
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Moscow
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 1,000
Moscow
City Court
06/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 6.30 p.m., brought to the police station at 8.30 p.m. on 05/05/2018; released at 12.00 a.m. on 06/05/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO.
4,000
8966/19
26/01/2019
Nikita Mikhaylovich GOLOVASHKIN
1995
Charskiy
Vladimir Valentinovich
Saratov
Saratov
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
detention for
2 days
Saratov Regional Court
26/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO.
4,000
21185/19
07/04/2019
Aleksandr Valentinovich BOBUROV
1972
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow
City Court
18/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2.25 p.m., brought to the police station at 3 p.m., released at 5.20 p.m. on 05/05/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
47516/19
26/08/2019
Liliya
Valeryevna SADAKOVA
1995
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Kirov
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Kirov Regional Court
05/03/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
49646/19
18/09/2019
Levon
Leonidovich SMIRNOV
1978
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow
City Court
08/04/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2.50 p.m., brought to the police station at 6 p.m., released at 9 p.m. on 05/05/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
55941/19
11/10/2019
Ivan Aleksandrovich MAKACHKA
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow
City Court
12/04/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 5 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.10 p.m. on 05/05/2018, released at 7.10 a.m. on 06/05/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
64256/19
04/12/2019
Anna
Sergeyevna STRIGA
1994
Vasin
Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Krasnoyarsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
06/06/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.