THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PAVLYUCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 7236/18 and 23 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 May 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pavlyuchenko 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 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 or organisers of public assemblies. 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 or organisers 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 Protocols thereto, 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, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018; Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019; and Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 72-74 and 81-82, 5 April 2022, as to administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, there is no need to examine other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, or under Article 11 (applications nos. 7463/18 and 32297/18).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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.”
15. 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 decides that it is not necessary to examine the remaining complaints raised by some applicants;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in relation to the facts described in the appended table;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and Protocols thereto 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 25 May 2023, 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 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]
7236/18
22/01/2018
Aleksey Georgiyevich PAVLYUCHENKO
1998
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Vladivostok,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
16/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to a police station 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
7463/18
25/12/2017
Igor Valentinovich SHARAPOV
1966
Protest against the road tax system “Platon”
Khimki,
21/05/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
Moscow Regional Court
29/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 21‑23/05/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports
4,000
13248/18
28/02/2018
Petr Vladimirovich TROFIMOV
1970
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
29/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) on 12‑14/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report;
(ii) on 10/06/2019 and 18/06/2019 escorting to and detention in a police station for (re-)compiling an offence report,
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
5,000,
jointly in respect of both applications lodged by the applicant
62551/19
18/11/2019
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Political protest
St Petersburg,
07/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
St Petersburg City Court
17/09/2019
26188/18
18/05/2018
Oleg Sergeyevich MASTRYUKOV
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Distribution of leaflets to support A. Navalnyy
Moscow,
09/07/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
20/11/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09/07/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report
4,000
27592/18
24/05/2018
Olga Mikhaylovna YATSKOVA
1997
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don,
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Rostov Regional Court
28/11/2017
3,500
28369/18
08/06/2018
Timur Vladimirovich NESKUCHAYEV
1997
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Distribution of leaflets to support A. Navalnyy
Moscow,
09/07/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
08/12/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09/07/2017 escorting to a police station 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
29525/18
13/06/2018
Denis Islamovich BAKAYEV
1981
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Opposition rally
Moscow,
12/07/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
22/01/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/07/2017 escorting to a police station 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
29548/18
08/06/2018
Anton Vladimirovich SIDOROV
1990
Romanov Pavel Valeryevich
Cheboksary
Opposition rally
Cheboksary,
29/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
32 hours of community work
Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic
12/12/2017
3,500
30493/18
18/06/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich KAZAKOV
1979
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Orenburg,
13/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
40 hours of community work
Orenburg Regional Court
19/12/2017
3,500
32297/18
21/06/2018
Vitaliy Aleksandrovich NAKONECHNIKOV
1982
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Moscow,
09/07/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
22/12/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09/07/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report
4,000
32587/18
25/06/2018
Irina Aleksandrovna FAYZULINA
1976
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
Opposition rally
Berezniki,
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
25/12/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
34821/18
16/07/2018
Timofey Igorevich DEMIDENKO
1991
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
16/01/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station 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
35400/18
17/07/2018
Irina Vladislavovna SAMARINA
1959
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Stavropol,
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
17/01/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
36988/18
27/07/2018
Anastasiya Mikhaylovna DEYNEKA
1998
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don,
24/12/2017
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
8 days of detention
Rostov Regional Court
27/01/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
5,000
37059/18
16/07/2018
Albert Maratovich RAYANOV
1990
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Novosibirsk,
30/09/2017
Rally against the pension reform
Novosibirsk,
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
30 days of detention
Novosibirsk Regional Court
16/01/2018
Novosibirsk Regional Court
14/09/2018
5,000,
jointly in respect of both applications lodged by the applicant
41917/18
17/08/2018
Rally to support L. Volkov and A. Navalnyy
Novosibirsk,
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 6,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
20/02/2018
41375/18
29/07/2018
Veronika Viktorovna OVSYANNIKOVA
1999
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Rally to support L. Volkov and A. Navalnyy
Novosibirsk,
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
30/01/2018
3,500
43224/18
30/08/2018
Roman Yevgenyevich KARMATSKIY
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Distribution of leaflets to support A. Navalnyy
Moscow,
20/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
06/03/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 20/10/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report
4,000
46237/18
18/09/2018
Anna Borisovna YEREMEYEVA
1994
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don,
24/12/2017
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 75,000
Rostov Regional Court
20/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,500
50929/18
09/10/2018
Daniil Konstantinovich BEBEKIN
1999
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Rally to support L. Volkov and A. Navalnyy
Novosibirsk,
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
10/04/2018
3,500
54858/18
01/11/2018
Genrikh En FON DESTIO
1995
Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna
Moscow
Event to support Telegram
Moscow,
16/04/2018
Article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/05/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 16‑17/04/2018 detention in a police station after 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
58018/18
28/11/2018
Nadezhda Nikolayevna CHURAKOVA
1961
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Distribution of leaflets to support A. Navalnyy
Moscow,
07/01/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
06/06/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 07/01/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report
4,000
58050/18
20/11/2018
Stepan Sergeyevich VYBOCH
1994
Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna
Moscow
Event to support Telegram
Moscow,
16/04/2018
Article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/08/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 16‑17/04/2018 detention in a police station after 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.