THIRD SECTION
CASE OF RAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 53786/21 and 12 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 January 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rakov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 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. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 in the light of its well-established case-law (see 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; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences, in order to identify, locate and arrest the applicant).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised 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 10-13 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 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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
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]
53786/21
19/10/2021
Pavel Vladimirovich RAKOV
1978
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Vladivostok
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
27/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings)
4,000
54255/21
13/10/2021
Nikita Sergeyevich MATSUKOV
1998
Akchermyshev Fedor Fedorovich
Yekaterinburg
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Yekaterinburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours of community work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
14/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
54258/21
12/10/2021
Danil Olegovich GORBUNOV
2001
Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Vladivostok
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Vladivostok
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Primorye Regional Court
12/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 3.20 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
55639/21
19/10/2021
Alisa Dmitriyevna SIBIRSKAYA
1998
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
19/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
18120/22
16/03/2022
Yuliya Dmitriyevna CHIGAREVA
1988
Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Manifestation in
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
16/09/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 12.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (examined by the appeal court)
4,000
19603/22
12/03/2022
Roman Maksimovich ABMOSOV
1995
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
05/10/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
23045/22
27/03/2022
Sergey Sergeyevich ROZHKOV
1975
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally against constitutional amendments
Moscow
15/07/2020
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
21/10/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 15/07/2020 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
34169/22
01/07/2022
Sergey Aleksandrovich TIKHONOV
1989
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention for 15 days
Moscow City Court
21/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 4.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 5 p.m. on 07/03/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
36828/22
20/07/2022
Lyudmila Vladimirovna LYASHENKO
1963
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
19/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
38204/22
21/07/2022
Maksim Vladimirovich SEREGIN
2003
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
29/03/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and his subsequent conviction (raised on appeal)
5,000
38832/22
20/07/2022
Ilya Grigoryevich SIMANOVSKIY
1981
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
11/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 24/02/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
39024/22
27/07/2022
Yevgenuya Aleksandrovna KASVINA
1999
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
27/01/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and her subsequent conviction (raised on appeal)
5,000
31240/23
17/11/2021
Anton Stepanovich VOROBYEV
1985
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
05/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings),
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.