FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF RYABININ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 10869/18 and 18 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 September 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ryabinin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 July 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol.
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 5 § 1 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
8. The Court reiterates that that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III).
9. In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91‑96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, 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 on 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 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 Protocol, 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 Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings (CAO), Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 179-91, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38‑42, 8 October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of an administrative detention; and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers 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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Article 5 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 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful deprivation of liberty;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention or its Protocol 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 5 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start date of unauthorised detention
End date of unauthorised detention
Specific defects
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and
costs and
expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
10869/18
15/02/2018
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich RYABININ
1987
08/09/2017, 4.10 p.m.
09/09/2017, 11.20 a.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
3,000
10192/20
03/02/2020
Nikita Andreyevich KUZMICHEV
1991
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
03/08/2019
03/08/2019
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
3,000
21162/21
30/03/2021
Ragnar Odinson REYN
1989
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
21/01/2021
29/01/2021
21/01/2021
29/01/2021
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events:
1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court on 11/02/2021, sentence to detention of 3 days;
2) administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court on 16/02/2021, sentence to detention of 7 days,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
21366/21
06/04/2021
Konstantin Sergeyevich KROPACHEV
1982
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
28/01/2021, 4 p.m.
29/01/2021, until court hearing
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Tver Regional Court, 04/02/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Tver Regional Court on 04/02/2021, sentence to detention of 7 days
5,000
23556/21
14/04/2021
Artur Nikolayevich BAVRIN
1991
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
28/01/2021, 8.45 a.m.
29/01/2021, until court hearing
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Tver Regional Court, 04/02/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Tver Regional Court on 04/02/2021, sentence to detention of 10 days
5,000
23791/21
22/04/2021
Anatoliy Valentinovich BUROV
1977
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
31/01/2021, 1 p.m.
01/02/2021, 4 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; 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 and 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 - final decision: Vologda Regional Court, 11/03/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Vologda Regional Court on 11/03/2021, fine of RUB 20,000
4,000
35126/21
25/06/2021
Maksim Anatolyevich BATYKOV
1991
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
27/01/2021, 5.20 p.m.
28/01/2021, 11 a.m., raised on appeal
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 17/03/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 17/03/2021, fine of RUB 20,000
4,000
45005/21
10/08/2021
Ilya Andreyevich LOGVIN
1997
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
31/01/2021
01/02/2021, raised on appeal
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances; 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 and 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/02/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 3 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on VKontakte; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/02/2021, sentence to detention of 14 days
5,000
45839/21
01/09/2021
Mikhail Stanislavovich ZAYCHIKOV
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
29/01/2021, 2 p.m.
29/01/2021, 7.45 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18/03/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18/03/2021, sentence to detention of 7 days
5,000
46684/21
02/09/2021
Mariya Vladimirovna MAKAROVA
1983
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
30/01/2021
30/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 03/03/2021 and 18/03/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on Telegram, and resistance when arrested; final decisions: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, on 03/03/2021 and 18/03/2021, detention of 3 and 8 days
5,000
47002/21
15/09/2021
Igor Vladimirovich KONOTOPOV
1972
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
04/02/2021, 4 p.m.
05/02/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 24/03/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on Facebook; final decision: Volgograd Regional Court on 24/03/2021, fine of RUB 20,000
4,000
47519/21
03/09/2021
Roman Denisovich TREGUBOV
1992
Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
28/01/2021, 1 p.m.
29/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 04/03/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on VKontakte; final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 04/03/2021, detention of 5 days
5,000
54093/21
05/10/2021
Sergey Viktorovich RYBAKOV
1986
Tsvetkov Aleksey Viktorovich
Vladimir
14/04/2021
15/04/2021
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort; 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Vladimir Regional Court, 22/04/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2.2 § 3 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 06/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on Youtube; final decision: Vladimir Regional Court, 22/04/2021, detention of 8 days,
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
54481/21
18/10/2021
Igor Lazarevich BARYSHNIKOV
1959
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
21/04/2021, 6.40 p.m.
22/04/2021, 2.00 p.m., until court hearing
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, 29/04/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Facebook; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, on 29/04/2021, sentence to detention of 22 days,
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
2075/22
14/12/2021
Viktor Viktorovich KORCHAGIN
2003
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
22/04/2021
22/04/2021, raised on appeal
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Ryazan Regional Court, on 17/06/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Ryazan Regional Court, on 17/06/2021, fine of RUB 10,000
4,000
2960/22
02/12/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich GRIGORYEV
1995
Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
23/01/2021
23/01/2021, raised on appeal
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; 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 and 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 - final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 03/06/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 03/06/2021, sentence to detention of 9 days,
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
23399/22
15/04/2022
Sergey Viktorovich ZASTOIN
1970
22/07/2021
22/07/2021
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Murmansk Regional Court, on 18/10/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Murmansk Regional Court, on 18/10/2021, fine of RUB 20,000
4,000
34888/22
07/07/2022
Yelena Andreyevna BELOUSOVA
2001
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
27/02/2022
27/02/2022, raised on appeal
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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”
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, 23/03/2022,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for distributing posters with calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation against war on 27/02/2022; final decision: Altay Regional Court, 23/03/2022, fine of RUB 20,000
4,000
41315/22
13/08/2022
Yevdokiya Olegovna FEDOTOVA
2003
Chernova Nataliya Nikolayevna
Petrozavodsk
01/03/2022, 2.40 a.m.
02/03/2022, 10.45 a.m., raised on appeal
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; 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 and 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 - final decision: Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic, on 14/04/2022,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 28/02/2022 against war in Ukraine, published in Telegram; final decision: Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic, on 14/04/2022, fine of RUB 10,0000
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.