THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SHKOLA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 45640/21 and 18 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 July 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shkola and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
Diana Kovatcheva, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 June 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 and its Protocols, 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 and its Protocols in the light of its findings in 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); and 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.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention lodged by some of the applicants and concerning the fairness of the proceedings and the alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.
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 the 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 concerning the fairness of the proceedings and the alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;Holds that these applications 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 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 18 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis
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, costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
45640/21
24/08/2021
Aleksey Valeryevich SHKOLA
1993
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Yekaterinburg
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours’ community work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
10/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention 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; 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
45846/21
17/08/2021
Nikolay Nikolayevich MIROSHNICHENKO
1977
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
16/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
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; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings
4,000
46188/21
26/08/2021
Roman Sergeyevich MIRONOV
1996
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
5 days’ administrative arrest
Moscow City Court
11/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 - 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
5,000
54127/21
22/10/2021
Igor Sergeyevich BORISOV
1994
Abgadzhava Leonid Alkhasovich
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
22/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
54182/21
20/10/2021
Stanislav Timofeyevich KANEV
1988
Lipatova Yelena Vladimirovna
Moscow
Opposition rally
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
20/04/2021
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
54203/21
15/10/2021
Kirill Viktorovich PETROV
1992
Valiulin Sergey Aleksandrovich
Vladivostok
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Vladivostok
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
20/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
56938/21
15/11/2021
Petr Aleksandrovich SAVELYEV
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
17/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 - 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 examined by the appeal court
4,000
57241/21
15/11/2021
Anatoliy Sergeyevich SAVELYEV
1985
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
17/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
57587/21
11/11/2021
Anna Vasilyevna TIKHONOVA
1989
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 12.40 p.m. till 7 p.m. on 02/02/2021 - 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
57701/21
26/10/2021
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna PRYAZHKINA
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Smolensk
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
5 days’ administrative arrest
Smolensk Regional Court
09/06/2021
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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
61054/21
21/11/2021
Varvara Vasilyevna VOLOVIK
2002
Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
21/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 - 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
3798/22
23/12/2021
Aleksandr Georgiyevich BABINKOV
1955
Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
23/06/2021
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
3799/22
23/12/2021
Stanislav Aleksandrovich VLASOV
1974
Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
23/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1p.m. to 6.30 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
45029/22
31/08/2022
Kseniya Vladimirovna FINAYEVA
1992
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
12 days’ administrative arrest
St Petersburg City Court
12/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 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; 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,
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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
45192/22
05/09/2022
Aleksandra Dmitriyevna BELOSHUMOVA
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
19/05/2022
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; 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
45449/22
17/08/2022
Irina Vladimirovna VOLLE
1971
Lipatova Yelena Vladimirovna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
21/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 4.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 till 1 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; 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
46359/22
15/09/2022
Mariya Pavlovna RUDAKOVA
1967
Anti-war protest
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
17/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 3.25 p.m. till 11 p.m. on 13/03/2022 - 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: 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
46460/22
12/09/2022
Konstantin Aleksandrovich SLIVNITSYN
2002
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
Yekaterinburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
39 hours of community work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
15/06/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
50097/22
17/10/2022
Semen Arkadyevich NAKROKHIN
1996
Boris Nemtsov memorial march
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
21/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 17/02/2022 - 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.