THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NELYUBIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2064/18 and 12 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 April 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Nelyubin 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 April 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 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 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 and its Protocols, 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; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention; and Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62-65 as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised 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 the above paragraphs, 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 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 the 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 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 25 April 2024, 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
Representative’s name and location
Name of the public event
Location
Date
Administrative / criminal offence
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]
2064/18
11/12/2017
Valeriy Georgiyevich NELYUBIN
1947
Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich
St Petersburg
Opposition rally
St Petersburg
29/04/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
04/07/2017
3,500
48440/19
05/09/2019
Dmitriy Yuryevich SEKUSHIN
1973
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Environmental issues rally
Arkhangelsk
07/04/2019
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fines of RUB 200,000
and
RUB 200,000
Arkhangelsk Regional Court
04/07/2019 and 07/05/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings: two sets of proceedings, final decision by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 07/05/2019 and 04/07/2019;
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - separate prosecutions under A20.2 CAO for one “hybrid” event
7,500
56348/21
15/10/2021
Vladimir Sergeyevich KOTOV
1981
Vlasov Aleksey Valeryevich
Tula
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Tula
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 13,000
Tula Regional Court
01/04/2021
(decision received on 15/04/2021)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of 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
56417/21
23/10/2021
Alina Aleksandrovna STEPANOVA
2001
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Sochi
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
26/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of 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
56508/21
28/10/2021
Anastasiya Vladimirovna SENYUSHKINA
2000
Vasilyev Aleksey Alekseyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
28/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of 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
56929/21
25/10/2021
Vladimir Aleksandrovich RUBETS
1988
Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City |Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/012021 for the sole purpose of 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
13739/22
28/02/2022
Mikhail Sergeyevich MIKHAYLENKO
1993
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
05/10/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.10 p.m. on 23/01/2021 until 01.00 a.m. on 24/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
46008/22
09/09/2022
Grigoriy Andreyevich MOYKIN
2000
Mangileva Vera Borisovna
Yekaterinburg
Anti-war protest (against war in Ukraine)
Yekaterinburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours of community service
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
15/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of 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
46501/22
07/09/2022
Aleksey Vladimirovich RUDAKOV
1994
Yermilova Natalya Pavlovna
Yekaterinburg
Anti-war protest (against war in Ukraine)
Yekaterinburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
32 hours of community work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
27/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 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
47023/22
14/09/2022
Tatyana Yuryevna KONDRATYEVA
2000
Yermilova Natalya Pavlovna
Yekaterinburg
Anti-war protest (against war in Ukraine)
Yekaterinburg
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
20/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for the sole purpose of 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
47136/22
15/09/2022
Valeriya Andreyevna KAN
1993
Valiulin Sergey Aleksandrovich
Vladivostok
Anti-war protest (against war Ukraine)
Vladivostok
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
16/05/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
47989/22
19/09/2022
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna KUZNETSOVA
1991
Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
31/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 10 p.m. on 02/02/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;
4,000
49312/22
04/10/2022
Sofya Dmitriyevna SUKHANOVA
2003
Sirinova Olga Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest (against war in Ukraine)
St Petersburg
02/03/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
07/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/03/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.