FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF PUKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 59975/13 and 25 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 June 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pukhov 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 17 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 organisers 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.
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, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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; and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 186-88, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
15. The Court has further examined the remainder of the complaints raised by the applicants in applications nos. 39315/18 and 42500/18 and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. 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 the applicants’ complaints 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, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of applications nos. 39315/18 and 42500/18 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints 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 8 June 2023, 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 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]
59975/13
12/09/2013
Stanislav Sergeyevich PUKHOV
1985
Davidyan
Eleonora Grantovna
Moscow
Rally against the conviction of the Pussy Riot group members
Moscow
17/08/2012
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow
12/03/2013
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
3930/17
30/12/2016
Valeriy
Yuryevich NADEZHDIN
1968
Zboroshenko
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
March for Change
Moscow
12/12/2015
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
08/07/2016
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 12/12/2015 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
16608/18
22/03/2018
Dmitriy Viktorovich TOLMACHEV
1970
Ivanets
Vyacheslav Sergeyevich
Tbilisi, Georgia
Event to inform voters about A. Navalnyy’s activity
Irkutsk
04/11/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative arrest of 5 days
Irkutsk Regional Court
22/11/2017
5,000
21537/18
30/04/2018
Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich TITOV
1977
Tiunov
Sergey Yuryevich
Yekaterinburg
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Yekaterinburg
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
05/12/2017
3,500
27432/18
18/05/2018
Rafail
Viktorovich SHEPELEV
1970
Tiunov
Sergey Yuryevich
Yekaterinburg
Rally to support A.Navalnyy
Yekaterinburg
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
33 hours of compulsory work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
12/12/2017
3,500
31917/18
21/06/2018
Olga
Alekseyevna ZENINA
1952
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don
07/10/2017
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don
24/12/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Rostov Regional Court
21/12/2017
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 - both sets of the CAO proceedings
3,500
39315/18
07/08/2018
Vladimir Sergeyevich NEMANOV
1996
Terekhov
Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
"Voters’ strike" rally
Kaliningrad
28/01/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Kaliningrad Regional Court
12/02/2018
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
42500/18
30/08/2018
and
19787/19
01/04/2019
Tatyana Viktorovna SPORYSHEVA
1976
42500/18
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
19787/19
Pomazuyev
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don
24/12/2017
Rally against the pension reform
Rostov-on-Don
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
administrative detention of 1 day
Rostov Regional Court
07/03/2018
Rostov Regional Court
09/10/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 09/09/2018 and 10/09/2018 as administrative suspect,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - both sets of the CAO proceedings
4,000
47782/18
21/09/2018
Irina Aleksandrovna NEVEROVA
1989
Pershakova
Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Manifestation to support Mr Navalny’s campaign
Perm
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
21/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
49185/18
10/10/2018
Artem
Valeryevich VAZHENKOV
1981
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Tver
07/07/2017
Political
manifestation
Tver
05/05/2018
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
administrative detention of 5 days
fine of RUB 10,000
Tver Regional Court
17/05/2018
Tver Regional Court
17/05/2018
Moscow City Court
24/09/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - all sets of administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) between 00.30 a.m. on 06/05/2018 and 2.40 p.m. on 07/05/2018 as administrative suspect; and (ii) between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect, for "drawing up the administrative offence record" (such record compiled on 28/07/2019).
5,000
52537/18
24/10/2018
Sergey
Sergeyevich TSUKASOV
1968
Sholokhov
Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Mother’s Day in Ostankino
Moscow
11/03/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
06/06/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
3,500
10407/19
09/02/2019
Ruslan
Adamovich MUTSOLGOV
1977
Sabinin
Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Rally against transfer of a part of the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia to the Chechen Republic
Magas
26/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia
06/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
18178/19
26/03/2019
Aleksandra Vladimirovna SEMENOVA
1979
Pershakova
Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Opposition manifestation "He is not our Tsar"
Perm
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
Perm Regional Court
26/09/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
5,500
21750/19
03/04/2019
Igor
Vladimirovich PUSHKAR
1962
Sholokhov
Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Rally against the pension reform
Omsk
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Omsk Regional Court
15/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty‑ arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
23746/19
15/04/2019
Vladimir Anatolyevich PEREKOTIY
1962
Vasin
Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Opposition rally
Krasnoyarsk
05/05/2018
Rally against the pension reform
Krasnoyarsk
09/09/2018
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Krasnoyarsk
23/01/2021
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Krasnoyarsk
31/01/2021
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
30 hours of community work
fine of RUB 10,000
100 hours of community work
fine of RUB 150,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
25/10/2018
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
28/03/2019
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
01/04/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
01/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty– (i) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 05/05/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; (ii) arrest and detention between 31/01/2021 and 02/02/2021 as administrative suspect, for compiling the administrative offence record in respect of the events of 23/01/2021 (drawn up on 02/02/2021), pending the examination of the case by the first-instance court;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - all sets of the CAO proceedings
5,500
25576/19
29/04/2019
Yevgeniy Valikhanovich MUSIN
1980
Peredruk
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Rally against abusive criminal prosecution
St Petersburg
28/10/2018
Article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
St Petersburg City Court
10/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 28/10/2018 and 29/10/2018 as administrative suspect,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
40242/19
17/07/2019
Vladimir Yuryevich SHIPITSYN
1969
Mezak
Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Rally against abusive criminal prosecution
St Petersburg
28/10/2018
Article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
17/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 28/10/2018 and 29/10/2018 as administrative suspect "for a correct and timely determination of the 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
63403/19
28/11/2019
Anzhela Khusenovna MATIYEVA
1971
Sabinin
Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Magas
06/10/2018
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
11/07/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
1720/20
18/12/2019
Vadim Miroslavovich YASKIV
1989
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
28/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 03/08/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
3878/20
20/12/2019
Sergey Dmitriyevich SOLOVYEV
1999
Yatsenko
Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Opposition manifestation
Moscow
05/05/2018
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 200,000
Moscow City Court
20/06/2019
Moscow City Court
30/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention (i) on 05/05/2018, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; delayed escorting to a police station; and (ii) on 27/07/2019 for the same purpose (administrative‑offence record drawn up on 30/07/2019 only),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - both sets of administrative proceedings
4,000
6350/20
17/01/2020
Dmitriy Sergeyevich KNYAZEV
1983
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation in support of I. Golunov
Moscow
12/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
02/08/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
3,500
9088/20
03/02/2020
Marina Aleksandrovna LUKYANETS
1976
Zboroshenko
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
14/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
06/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty -- arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 14/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
15309/20
29/02/2020
Roman
Igorevich MAKSIMOV
1995
Peredruk
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Event for fair elections
St Petersburg
29/06/2019
Article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
St Petersburg City Court
12/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 6.20 p.m. on 29/06/2019 and 1.20 a.m. on 30/06/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no record of administrative arrest compiled,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
17354/20
14/03/2020
Darya Aleksandrovna BELYAYEVA
1991
Kachanov
Roman Yevgenyevich
Yekaterinburg
Rally against a church construction
Yekaterinburg
04/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
18/09/2019
3,500
17906/20
30/03/2020
Nikolay
Igorevich NIKIFOROV
1995
Pomazuyev
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally against the pension reform
St Petersburg
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
14/11/2019
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.