FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ORESHNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 13744/19 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 May 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Oreshnikova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 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. Almost all 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 (the CAO); and 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.
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 paragraphs 10‑11 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 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 16 May 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
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]
13744/19
17/02/2019
and
6208/22
13/01/2022
Oksana Petrovna ORESHNIKOVA
1996
Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Opposition manifestation
Krasnoyarsk
05/05/2018
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Krasnoyarsk
21/04/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
fine of
RUB 15,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
18/10/2018
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
15/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – a) arrest and detention on 05/05/2018 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;
b) escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.40 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 2.00 a.m. on 22/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
31909/19
28/05/2019
and
13223/22
18/02/2022
Igor Nikolayevich ADYASOV
1970
Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Manifestation against the pension reform
Nizhny Novgorod
09/09/2018
Rally “Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
70 hours of community work
fine of
RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
29/11/2018
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
18/08/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case; the applicant spent 3h40 in the police van
4,000
45970/21
24/08/2021
Vladislav Sergeyevich POLISHCHUK
2002
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 31/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
45975/21
24/08/2021
Yefim Dmitriyevich STULOV
2001
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 31/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
45979/21
24/08/2021
Natalya Alekseyevna SHEVCHENKO
1996
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of
8 days
Moscow City Court
08/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 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
5,000
45984/21
24/08/2021
Konstantin Valeryevich PLATOV
1975
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of
12 days
Moscow City Court
26/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 31/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
46159/21
26/08/2021
Vyacheslav Vladimirovich NIZOVTSEV
1989
Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich
Nizhniy Tagil
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Yekaterinburg
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
04/08/2021
3,500
46170/21
04/09/2021
Oleg Viktorovich PSHENICHNYY
1964
Savelyeva Alena Alekseyevna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of
10 days
Moscow City Court
04/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 2.00 p.m. on 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case; the applicant spent 3 hours in the police van,
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 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
46179/21
26/08/2021
Maksim Stanislavovich LYSIKOV
1989
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 23/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
46185/21
26/08/2021
Vladislav Mikhaylovich VARGA
1994
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 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
59547/21
19/11/2021
Yegor Aleksandrovich VNUKOV
2000
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Krasnoyarsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
20/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.20 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021, while the said record was drawn up only on 12/02/2021; the applicant spent 2 hours in the police van,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
389/22
03/12/2021
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich ROGOZHKIN
2000
Kartashov Konstantin Borisovich
Penza
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Penza
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
30 hours of community work
Penza Regional Court
03/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 9.50 a.m. to 8.40 p.m. on 21/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
506/22
09/12/2021
Dmitriy Igorevich ZHUROV
1991
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Magadan
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
40 hours of community work
Magadan Regional Court
11/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 7.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 8.00 p.m. on 22/04/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3043/22
21/12/2021
Dmitriy Alekseyevich ZAIGRALOV
1997
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
21/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 11.50 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 8.00 p.m. on 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3158/22
16/12/2021
Daniil Yevgenyevich SHURYGIN
1999
Koshcheyev Konstantin Yuryevich
Petrozavodsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Petrozavodsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic
17/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 23/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3345/22
14/12/2021
Aleksandr Igorevich BAZHUKOV
1994
Shimovolos Sergey Mikhaylovich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally “Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
24/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.40 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021; the applicant spent more than 4 hours in the police van,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3361/22
17/12/2021
Roman Agitovich USOYAN
1999
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
St Petersburg City Court, 11/05/2021, the applicant was absent and not represented on appeal, he received a copy of the decision on
17/06/2021
3,500
9260/22
20/12/2021
Aleksey Sergeyevich KOROLEV
1982
Moiseyenko Vladimir Anatolyevich
Kaliningrad
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Kaliningrad
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
21/09/2021
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.