THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PULUDI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 43655/21 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Puludi 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 18 January 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. 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, 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 (the CAO); 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; and Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 78-84, ECHR 2009 and A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 117-34, 15 November 2016 and Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62-65 as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.
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 paragraph 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 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 February 2024, 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 / 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]
43655/21
07/08/2021
Yelena Sergeyevna PULUDI
2000
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
24/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021.
4,000
43682/21
09/08/2021
Andrey Vitalyevich KLIMENKO
1990
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Penza
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 20,000
Penza Regional Court
04/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 23/01/2021 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
43690/21
06/08/2021
Mikhail Mikhaylovich PRUSAKOV
1996
Nazarov Ilya Yulyevich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 7 days
Moscow City Court
08/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.46 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 5.00 p.m. on 03/02/2021,
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
43739/21
23/08/2021
Ilshat Rinatovich ZARIPOV
2001
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
03/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.50 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021 (unspecified hour).
4,000
46689/21
31/08/2021
Mark Yulianovich SELITSKIY
1999
Opposition rally
Rostov-on-Don
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Rostov Regional Court
02/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
47119/21
04/09/2021
Mariya Yevgenyevna NUYKINA
1999
Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich
Moscow
Rally to support Sergey Furgal
Khabarovsk
26/12/2020
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 1 day
Khabarovsk Regional Court
12/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
46068/22
08/09/2022
Sergey Aleksandrovich FALALEYEV
1971
Yermilova Natalya Pavlovna
Yekaterinburg
Protest against war in Ukraine
Yekaterinburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 20,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
13/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.00 p.m. until 8.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
46237/22
11/09/2022
Bulat Konstantinovich NIZAMIYEV
1994
Sabirov Rim Faridovich
Kazan
Protest against war in Ukraine
Kazan
02/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
11/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.30 p.m. on 02/03/2022 until 03/03/2021.
4,000
47613/22
17/09/2022
Viktor Vladimirovich KUCHERYAVYY
1951
Gak Irina Vladimirovna
Rostov-on-Don
Protest against war in Ukraine
Taganrog
05/03/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Fine of RUB 25,000
Rostov Regional Court
17/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.00 a.m. until 7.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
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. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 20.3.3 §1 of CAO).
4,000
47986/22
19/09/2022
Yelena Aleksandrovna KOROSTELEVA
1994
Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich
Nizhniy Tagil
Protest against war in Ukraine
Yekaterinburg
02/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
28/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.40 p.m. until 11.40 p.m. on 02/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
48305/22
03/10/2022
Mariya Gennadyevna NIKOLAYEVA
1985
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
03/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.15 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 12.40 a.m. on 25/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
48323/22
16/09/2022
Galina Aleksandrovna SAKHAREVICH
1992
Malinina Yuliya Valeryevna
Moscow
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
26/02/2022
article 20.6.1 §1 of CAO
Fine of RUB 30,000
Moscow City Court
07/06/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
48346/22
16/09/2022
Olga Lvovna GORELIK
1981
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
15/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.00 p.m. until 8.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
50568/22
07/10/2022
Anzhelika Sergeyevna KAZANTSEVA
1999
Protest against war in Ukraine
Perm
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
07/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.15 p.m. until 11.00 p.m. on 24/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings -
4,000
50874/22
28/09/2022
Marina Dmitriyevna POPOVA
1993
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Protest against war in Ukraine
St Petersburg
28/02/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
31/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.30 p.m. on 28/02/2022 until 2.30 a.m. on 01/03/2022
4,000
11254/23
18/02/2023
Andi Nikolayevich ARIPOV
2003
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
19/10/2022
3,500
12065/23
02/03/2023
Diana Olegovna KOROBEYNIKOVA
1996
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
03/11/2022
3,500
13077/23
08/03/2023
Polina Andreyevna BIRYUKOVA
2000
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
09/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.30 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 1.00 a.m. on 25/02/2022
4,000
14342/23
03/03/2023
Konstantin Yevgenyevich FROLOV
1997
Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Moscow
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
27/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/07/2022
(The administrative case was returned to the first-instance court (the Gagarinskiy District Court in Moscow) and was available in its registry on 3 November 2022 (the applicant submits a copy of the electronic tracking system available on the District Court’s Internet site). The applicant alleges that the appeal decision has never been sent to him and that he could obtain a copy of it only in December 2022, after the case file was returned from the appeal court to the first-instance court.)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 01/04/2022 and lack of administrative detention record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
16917/23
07/08/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich PULUDI
1987
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
24/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021.
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.