THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SAVELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 62815/10 and 5 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 December 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Savelov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2022,
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 on account of their arrest and conviction for an administrative offence following their participation in public demonstrations. 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 on account of their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence in view of their participation in public demonstrations. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 11
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly ...
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ...”
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, 5 January 2016, 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 interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly was 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. In applications nos. 8778/12 and 72625/12, the 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 findings in Navalnyy and Yashin (cited above, §§ 82-85 and §§ 91-98); Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016); and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 486‑92, 7 February 2017).
12. Finally, in application no. 39123/12 the applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 11 that he had been discriminated against on account of his sexual orientation. Having regard to its findings above, the Court finds these complaints admissible but does not consider it necessary to continue a separate examination of their merits (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 100, ECHR 2006‑XI).
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, most recently, Fedotova v. Russia [Committee], no. 2064/10, § 16, 1 March 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the public assembly;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) by the applicants in applications nos. 8778/12 and 72625/12;Holds that there is no need to examine the merits of the complaint raised in application no. 39123/12 under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 11;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 1 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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]
62815/10
14/10/2010
Igor Gennadyevich SAVELOV
1989
Gorlov Stanislav Vladimirovich
Moscow
Picket against the demolition of residential buildings
Moscow, Tverskaya square
09/02/2010
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
15/04/2010
3,000
8778/12
29/12/2011
Petr Yuryevich VERZILOV
1987
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to State Duma
Moscow, Teatralnyy Proyezd
05/12/2011
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
09/12/2011
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to examine the defence witnesses (who were present during the applicant’s arrest), the only evidence are police written statements and escorting records,
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 05/12/2011 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; the record could have been drawn up on the spot; detention for more than 3 hours
3,900
31808/12
23/04/2012
Ruslan Abdulganiyevich RASULOV
1963
Anti-corruption rally
Makhachkala
03/10/2011
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of
2 days
Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic
08/02/2012
3,000
39123/12
08/06/2012
Matvey Andreyevich PETUKHOV
1990
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Demonstration against the "propaganda of homosexuality" law
Moscow, Chistoprudnyy Boulevard
01/10/2011
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow
12/12/2011
3,000
63544/12
29/09/2012
Mikhail Leontyevich UDIMOV
1955
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
Political manifestation
Moscow, Voskresenskiye Gates
01/04/2012
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
03/07/2012
3,000
72625/12
23/10/2012
Kirill Nikolayevich YERMOLAYEV
1990
Tseytlina Olga Pavlovna
St Petersburg
Protest against Duma Elections’
Results
Gostinyy Dvor
St Petersburg
07/12/2011
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg
31/05/2012
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
3,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.