FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF OOO ORION AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 16154/19 and 8 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of OOO Orion and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.Jurisdiction
6. 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 6 § 1 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative‑offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8. In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. 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.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), 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 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the absence of the prosecuting party from the administrative-offence proceedings 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 of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings;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 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth, where relevant
Representative’s name and location
Penalty
Date of final domestic decision
Name of court
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
16154/19
12/03/2019
OOO ORION
administrative fine of RUB 300,000
12/09/2018,
Azov Town Court of the Rostov Region
1,000
27375/19
07/05/2019
Aleksey Aleksandrovich KHIMCHENKOV
1984
administrative fine of RUB 5,000
06/12/2018,
Vologda Town Court
1,000
43682/19
31/07/2019
Aleksey Viktorovich KATERBUZOV
1976
administrative fines of RUB 75,000; RUB 75,000 and RUB 100,000
31/01/2019, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court,
14/02/2019, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court,
06/06/2019, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
1,300
46459/19
27/08/2019
Artem Aleksandrovich LUKIN
1996
administrative detention of 5 days
01/08/2019,
Moscow City Court
1,000
49801/19
14/09/2019
Pavel Pavlovich MALYSHEV
1985
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin
Volsk
administrative fine of RUB 30 000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 9 months
10/09/2019,
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region
1,000
51465/19
22/09/2019
Denis Mikhaylovich SEMENOV
1983
Aleksey Alekseyevich
Yemelin
Volsk
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months
23/05/2019,
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region
1,000
52125/19
21/09/2019
Dmitriy Yuryevich BEZBEKOV
1985
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin
Volsk
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months
12/09/2019,
Krasnoarmeysk Town Court of the Saratov Region
1,000
10657/20
18/02/2020
Olga Viktorovna GAVRIKOVA
1955
Anna Borisovna
Karakozova
Moscow
administrative fine of RUB 20, 000
22/08/2019,
Moscow City Court
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 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence
3,900
12071/20
25/02/2020
Yana Sergeyevna OPARINA
1995
Yevgeniy Valeryevich
Kulakov
Arkhangelsk
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 7 months
19/11/2019,
Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy