THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PCHELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 6274/13 and 23 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pchelin 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 16 March 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 and/or participants 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.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and/or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as the applicants’ arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. 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”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. 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 well‑established case-law (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful administrative arrest, and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences(CAO)).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. In view of its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by some of the applicants in relation to other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.”
14. 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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the right to peaceful assembly 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 separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the right to peaceful assembly,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;
Dismisses the reminder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 April 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]
6274/13
06/12/2012
Dmitriy Fedorovich PCHELIN
1984
Protest against a violation of freedom of peaceful assembly
Moscow,
Red Square
01/04/2012
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
13/06/2012
3,500
69940/17
07/09/2017
Yevgeniy Viktorovich TRISHIN
1988
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 1,000 and RUB 10,000, respectively
St Petersburg City Court
18/07/2017
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 12/06/2017 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; issue raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court on 18/07/2017
4,000
79158/17
02/11/2017
Ivan Borisovich KURIN
1986
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
Anti-corruption rally
Labour Square, Yekaterinburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
04/05/2017
3,500
79161/17
02/11/2017
Leonid Valeryevich MELCHAKOV
1983
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
Anti-corruption rally
Labour Square, Yekaterinburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
03/05/2017
3,500
79367/17
02/11/2017
Leonid Leonidovich VINOKUROV
1986
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
Anti-corruption rally
Labour Square, Yekaterinburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
03/05/2017
3,500
79945/17
15/11/2017
Dmitriy Pavlovich POROKH
1995
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
Anti-corruption rally
Labour square, Yekaterinburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
16/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of
liberty, including unrecorded
detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant was detained for almost 3 hours on 26/03/2017 in a police bus at the place of the events without a valid reason; raised on appeal
4,000
80631/17
17/11/2017
Anatoliy Viktorovich GONENKO
1984
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
26/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 26/05/2017
3,500
80632/17
17/11/2017
Oksana Aleksandrovna PROSNIKOVA
1985
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
17/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant was escorted to a police station on 26/03/2017, where the administrative offence report was drawn up. The applicant’s detention exceeded 3-hour statutory time limit; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 17/05/2017
4,000
80633/17
17/11/2017
Olga Nikolayevna BUSHKOVA
1986
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
16/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicant escorted to a police station to draw an administrative offence report; arrest exceeding 3-hour statutory time limit; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 16/06/2017
4,000
81111/17
20/11/2017
Yuliya Alekseyevna SUBOCHEVA
1986
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Public assembly in favour of social benefits for Moscow residents
Moscow
01/07/2016
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 24/05/2017
3,500
83338/17
05/12/2017
Yuriy Aleksandrovich LEVANOV
1981
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
06/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; arrest exceeding 3-hour statutory time-limit; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 06/06/2017
4,000
83929/17
08/12/2017
Andrey Aleksandrovich BELYAVSKIY
1982
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 14/06/2017
3,500
83934/17
08/12/2017
Valeriy Sergeyevich NAZARKIN
1983
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
08/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - the applicant was arrested on 26/03/2017 and escorted to a police station for compiling an administrative offence record; arrest exceeding 3-hour statutory time- limit; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 08/06/2017
4,000
83937/17
08/12/2017
Sergey Gennadyevich RIDINGER
1986
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicant was arrested on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record; the applicant’s detention exceeded the statutory time- limit of 3 hours; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 24/07/2017
4,000
83947/17
08/12/2017
Aleksey Mikhaylovich SINITSYN
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Moscow City Court
18/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - the applicant was escorted to a police station for drawing up an administrative offence record; the arrest exceeded 3-hour statutory time- limit; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 18/07/2017
4,000
84510/17
15/12/2017
Vladimir Ivanovich SOFILKANICH
1968
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
16/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicant was arrested on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, without any assessment/explanation as to why it was impossible to draw the record on the spot; unlawful administrative arrest exceeding 3 hours: apprehended by the police at 2.50 p.m. on 26/03/2017, released from the police station at 8 p.m.; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 16/06/2017
4,000
84520/17
18/12/2017
Yekaterina Valeryevna TAGUNOVA
1991
Mehtiyeva Kamalia
Paris
Rally for rotation of high-ranking Russian officials
Aleksandrovskiy Park, St Petersburg
29/04/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
and
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
and
fine of RUB 100
St Petersburg City Court
20/06/2017
3,500
2160/18
11/12/2017
Kseniya Mikhaylovna KORCHILOVA
1996
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Anti-corruption demonstration
St Petersburg,
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
06/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court on 06/07/2017
3,500
2845/18
26/12/2017
Stanislav Valeryevich ANDREYCHUK
1985
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Anti-terrorism manifestation
Barnaul
08/04/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Altay Regional Court
12/09/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Altay Regional Court on 12/09/2017
3,500
3844/18
13/12/2017
Mariya Sergeyevna SECHINA
1991
Ratnikova Svetlana Sergeyevna
St Petersburg
Anti-corruption demonstration
St Petersburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
06/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court on 06/07/2017
3,500
4818/18
08/12/2017
Ruslan Igorevich OSTROVSKIY
1989
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Anti-corruption rally
Tverskaya square, Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
08/12/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrested on 26/03/2017, at 3.30 p.m., taken to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence; released on the same day after 10 p.m., detention beyond the 3-hour statutory time-limit; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 08/12/2017
4,000
59656/18
06/12/2018
Igor Aleksandrovich YAKOVLEV
1986
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Opposition manifestation
Republic Square, Cheboksary
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
07/06/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic on 07/06/2018
3,500
59662/18
08/12/2018
Pavel Vladimirovich NIKITIN
1991
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Opposition manifestation
Vladimir
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
and
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
and
1 day of administrative arrest
Vladimir Regional Court
06/09/2018
and
Vladimir Regional Court
09/06/2018
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. Final decisions: Vladimir Regional Court on 06/09/2018 and 09/06/2018
3,500
1025/19
14/12/2018
Nikolay Aleksandrovich SKVORTSOV
1990
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Opposition manifestation
Cheboksary
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
17/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic on 17/07/2018
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.