FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF NEBIYERIDZE AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 41505/17 and 30 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 Nebiyeridze 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 organisers or participants of country-wide protests against corruption organised by Aleksey Navalnyy on 26 March 2017 (see Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 2, 4 October 2022). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto.
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 organisers or 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 and its Protocols 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”); and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants also raised other 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 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
15. The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others, cited above, § 22), 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 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, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto 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 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]
41505/17
11/05/2017
Vitaliy Otariyevich NEBIYERIDZE
1968
Sochi
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
detention for 8 days
Krasnodar Regional Court
31/03/2017
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 by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
53791/17
17/07/2017
Stanislav Vladimirovich BABANOV
1992
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Volgograd
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
19/04/2017
3,500
79023/17
09/11/2017
Sergey Vladimirovich ANDREYEV
1978
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Almetyevsk
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
02/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
79374/17
02/11/2017
Ilya Vladimirovich KOROBKOV
1986
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
Ekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
03/05/2017
3,500
607/18
07/12/2017
Mikhail Aleksandrovich IOSILEVICH
1976
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Nizhniy Novgorod
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
15/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2 p.m., brought to the police station and released at 6 p.m. on 26/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
2564/18
07/12/2017
Boris Mikhaylovich ZOLOTAREVSKIY
1997
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Chelyabinsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
21/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
2571/18
08/12/2017
Artem Sergeyevich AGANIN
1997
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Nizhniy Novgorod
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
15/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2.10 p.m., brought to the police station and released at 6 p.m. on 26/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
3683/18
08/01/2018
Yevgeniy Igorevich GERASIMOV
1984
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
18/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
3685/18
08/01/2018
Pavel Nikolayevich FISENKO
1979
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
3687/18
08/01/2018
Emil Narimanovich ASANOV
1991
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
28/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 10.30 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 3 a.m. on 27/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
3689/18
08/01/2018
Kirill Vitalyevich YAKOVENKO
1992
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
14/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 5 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 3 a.m. on 27/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
3780/18
12/01/2018
Ivan Leonidovich VINNIKOV
1987
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 8.30 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 4.45 a.m. on 27/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
4031/18
08/01/2018
Ilya Pavlovich KONSTANTINOV
1997
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
14/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
4038/18
08/01/2018
Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZAKHAROV
1990
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
28/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 4 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 1.25 a.m. on 27/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
4039/18
08/01/2018
Maksim Yevgenyevich DUNOV
1972
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
28/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 4 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 2.15 a.m. on 27/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
4044/18
08/01/2018
Surazh Rustambayevich MATKURBANOV
1994
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
20/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
4055/18
08/01/2018
Yevgeniy Vitalyevich MAKEYEV
1970
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
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
4065/18
08/01/2018
Aleksey Vasilyevich PRONIN
1973
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
24/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
4845/18
17/01/2018
Yevgeniy Igorevich NOSENKO
1986
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
4848/18
17/01/2018
Mikhail Valeryevich TOKARSKIY
1975
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Khabarovsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
26/07/2017
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 and released after 5.p.m. on 26/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
4856/18
17/01/2018
Yaroslav Yakovlevich PAVLYUKOV
1993
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
10/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 3.30 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6 p.m. on 26/03/2017; released at 5.05 a.m. on 27/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
4888/18
17/01/2018
Kita Pavlovich MARTYANOV
1988
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
26/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
5027/18
08/01/2018
Aleksandr Anatolyevich SHVETSKOV
1990
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
18/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 3 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.45 p.m. on 26/03/2017; released at 12.30 a.m. on 27/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
5062/18
08/01/2018
Viktor Aleksandrovich TARASOV
1998
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
26/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 4 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5 p.m. on 26/03/2017; released at 2.10 a.m. on 27/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
5205/18
17/01/2018
Eduard Urozoyevich GABBASOV
1975
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
08/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
5213/18
17/01/2018
Vladislav Viktorovich PAVLOV
1977
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
26/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
5234/18
17/01/2018
Aleksandr Stanislavovich POTASHEV
1990
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
18/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
5275/18
17/01/2018
Pavel Igorevich MARKOV
1988
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Khabarovsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
31/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2.20 p.m., brought to the police station and released after 5.p.m. on 26/03/2017);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
6451/18
18/01/2018
Farid Akhmadovich ZARIFI
1977
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
18/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6575/18
26/01/2018
Andrey Olegovich PAVLOV
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
26/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
26994/18
23/05/2018
Maksim Olegovich GULBIN
1978
Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 18,000
Moscow City Court
28/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.