THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SERGEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 48656/18 and 10 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sergeyeva 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 8 December 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). 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.
AS TO LOCUS STANDI OF Ms gvozdeva6. Following Mr Gvozdev’s death (application no. 57212/19), his mother, Ms Svetlana Anatolyevna Gvozdeva, expressed the wish to pursue the application. The Government objected noting that the rights claimed by Mr Gvozdev belonged to the category of non-transferrable rights and that his mother could not claim to have a sufficient legal interest to justify the continued examination of the application.
7. The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII).
8. In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Gvozdeva has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For convenience, it will, however, continue to refer to Mr Gvozdev as the applicant in the present judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention9. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non- compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so[.]”
10. 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).
11. In the earlier cases against Russia, the Court has consistently held that (1) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), or (2) “escorting” to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019, and Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention.
12. 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 (including taking into account the
three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022)) 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).
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW14. The 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. 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 its well-established case-law (see, among other numerous authorities, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies).
15. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. 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.”
17. 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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares that Ms Gvozdeva (application no. 57212/19) has standing to pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead;Declares the complaints concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);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 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 January 2023, 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 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]
48656/18
27/09/2018
Olga Vladimirovna SERGEYEVA
1980
19/03/2018 at around 1.00 a.m.
19/03/2018 at 11.30 a.m.
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 (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
3,000
48788/18
27/09/2018
Gulnara Raisovna GALYAUTDINOVA
1979
19/03/2018 at around 1.00 a.m.
19/03/2018 at around 11.55 a.m.
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 (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
3,000
55381/19
08/10/2019
Aleksandr Alekseyevich RZHAVIN
1991
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
16/12/2018
3 p.m.
16/12/2018
6.46 p.m.
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 (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016) – Final decision: Moscow City Court 08/04/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Manifestation in support of Ukrainian marines / Lubyanka square, Moscow 16/12/2018; Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO; fine of RUB 10,000; Moscow City Court 08/04/2019.
3,900
57212/19
23/10/2019
Aleksandr Nikolayevich GVOZDEV
1994
Deceased on 26/04/2020
Application pursued by Svetlana Anatolyevna Gvozdeva
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
27/07/2019
29/07/2019
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 07/08/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 27/07/2019. Conviction under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO to 7 days of administrative arrest. Final decision - Moscow City Court, 07/08/2019.
3,900
8641/20
29/01/2020
Kseniya Valeryevna DYMARSKAYA
1981
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2019
2 p.m.
12/06/2019
8.30 p.m.
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 (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/08/2019;
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov in Moscow on 12/06/2019;
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/08/2019.
3,900
33810/20
31/07/2020
Vladislav Olegovich SORVENKOV
1997
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
3.30 p.m. 03/08/2019
1.40 p.m. 05/08/2019
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 (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017),
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 (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), the issue was raised in administrative proceedings (in appeal)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/11/2019
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 03/08/2019 in Moscow. Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, 3 days of administrative detention. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/11/2019.
3,900
33902/20
31/07/2020
Aleksey Nikolayevich NIKOLAYEV
1994
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
5 p.m. 03/08/2019
04/08/2019
2.40 a.m.
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 (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), the issue was raised in administrative proceedings (in appeal)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/02/2020.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 03/08/2019 in Moscow. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/02/2020.
3,900
35182/20
11/08/2020
Sergey Vladimirovich BORZENKO
1994
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
4.00 p.m. 03/08/2019
04/08/2019
3.00 a.m.
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 (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), the issue was raised in administrative proceedings (in appeal)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016) - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2020.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 03/08/2019 in Moscow. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2020.
3,900
35183/20
11/08/2020
Vasiliy Aleksandrovich SOLDATOV
1992
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
03/08/2019
7.20 p.m.
03/08/2019
11.30 p.m.
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 (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/11/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 03/08/2019 in Moscow. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 12,000. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/11/2019.
3,900
35184/20
11/08/2020
Vyacheslav Nikolayevich SYESTOV
1974
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
03/08/2019
4.55 p.m.
04/08/2019
2.10 a.m.
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 (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision: Moscow City Court, 20/11/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 03/08/2019 in Moscow. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 20/11/2019.
3,900
35209/20
11/08/2020
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SAVIN
1987
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
03/08/2019
04/08/2019
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 (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/11/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 03/08/2019 in Moscow. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/11/2019.
3,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.