FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SLASTENIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 70345/17 and 28 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Slastenin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2023,
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 and participants of public assemblies. 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.
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 and 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 the Protocols thereto, 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 Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; 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 administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under the CAO; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 21-28 and 37-43, 8 October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 100 et seq., ECHR 2015; Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 139 et seq., 18 December 2018; Butkevich, §§ 94-103, and Martynyuk, §§ 21-28, both cited above, related to impossibility to question witnesses in a criminal trial (in relation to application no. 14672/20 as indicated in the appended table).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, there is no need to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.
14. Lastly, some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
15. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 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, 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, decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these complaints 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 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 13 April 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
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]
70345/17
07/09/2017
Nikita Alekseyevich SLASTENIN
1996
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
and
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
10 days of detention
and
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
16/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12-13/06/2017 the applicant was kept in a police station after the offence reports had been compiled,
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 applicant started to serve the sentence of detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings did not offer suspensive effect
5,000
84272/17
14/12/2017
Vasiliy Vladimirovich DROBYSHEV
1977
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
5 days of detention
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
16/06/2017
St Petersburg City Court
06/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12-13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling the offence reports,
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 applicant started to serve the sentence of detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings did not offer suspensive effect
5,000
84276/17
14/12/2017
Sergey Ivanovich VASILYEV
1985
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
5 days of detention
St Petersburg City Court
04/07/2017
St Petersburg City Court
19/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12-14/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling the offence reports,
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 applicant started to serve the sentence of detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings did not offer suspensive effect
5,000
3647/18
13/12/2017
Nikita Yuryevich VISSARIONOV
1995
Ratnikova Svetlana Sergeyevna
St Petersburg
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
12 days of detention
St Petersburg City Court
20/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12-13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling the offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
3676/18
08/01/2018
Yekaterina Sergeyevna POZDNYAKOVA
1995
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
11/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in a police station on 12-13/06/2017 for and after compiling the offence reports,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
24336/18
08/05/2018
Andrey Vadimovich SHKILNYUK
1998
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Protest rally
Moscow
05/11/2017
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
15 days of detention
Moscow City Court
08/11/2017
5,000
24344/18
10/05/2018
Yevgeniy Georgiyevich LIN
1988
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Protest rally
Moscow
05/11/2017
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
10 days of detention
Moscow City Court
10/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
24661/18
29/04/2018
Nikolay Petrovich MIRONOV
1971
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Protest against political persecution
Tula
29/10/2017
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
8 days of detention
Tula Regional Court
03/11/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 29/10/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
36109/18
26/07/2018
Dmitriy Sergeyevich MERZLYAKOV
1983
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
12/06/2017
Rally against the pension reform
St Petersburg
09/09/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
5 days of detention
Moscow City Court
30/01/2018
St Petersburg City Court
11/10/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 9-10/09/2018 the applicant remained detained after the offence reports had been compiled,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of the proceedings
5,000
37029/18
06/07/2018
Dmitriy Vitalyevich PESHKOV
1995
Rally to support A. Navalnyy’s candidacy for President,
Novosibirsk
07/10/2017
Rally to support A. Navalniy and L. Volkov,
Novosibirsk
30/09/2017
Rally against the pension reform,
Novosibirsk
09/09/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
fine of RUB 5,000
15 days of detention
Novosibirsk Regional Court
16/01/2018
Novosibirsk Regional Court
16/01/2018
Novosibirsk Regional Court
20/09/2018
5,000
42836/18
21/08/2018
Ilya Sergeyevich BOLOBAN
1989
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Photo shooting session with banners
Inta
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
5 days of detention
Supreme Court of Komi Republic
21/02/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 14/10/2017 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
50126/18
10/10/2018
Sergey Anatolyevich ZHOLOBOV
1998
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally against Putin’s re-election
Voronezh
05/05/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
5 days of detention
Voronezh Regional Court
05/06/2018
Voronezh Regional Court
21/06/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
56357/18
21/11/2018
Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich SHIPANOV
1981
Zhulimov Igor Anatolyevich
Penza
Rally relating to the presidential election
Penza
05/05/2018
Rally against the pension reform
Penza
09/09/2018
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
5 days of detention
fine of RUB 12,000
Penza Regional Court
22/05/2018
Penza Regional Court
14/02/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 14-15/09/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling the offence report concerning the rally on 09/09/2018
5,000
59767/18
06/12/2018
Lyudmila Viktorovna GRABKO
1975
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Rally of mortgage loaners
Moscow
28/11/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
06/06/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 28/11/2017 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3838/19
29/12/2018
Stanislav Mikhaylovich CHEPACHENKO
1986
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Anticorruption rally
Krasnodar
05/05/2018
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
1 day of detention
Krasnodar Regional Court
03/07/2018
4,000
4433/19
10/01/2019
Ivan Igorevich KUTUZOV
1987
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Opposition rally
Vladimir
05/05/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
1 day of detention
Vladimir Regional Court
02/10/2018
Vladimir Regional Court
12/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
12474/19
25/02/2019
Dmitriy Viktorovich OGORODNIKOV
1985
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally against the pension reform
St Petersburg
09/09/2018
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
7 days of detention
St Petersburg City Court
11/10/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 09-11/09/2018 the applicant remained detained after the offence report had been compiled,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
18145/19
21/03/2019
Sergey Nikolayevich KOLESNIKOV
1993
Yesipova Alina Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
Rally against the pension reform
St Petersburg
09/09/2018
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
9 days of detention
St Petersburg City Court
24/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-11/09/2018 the applicant was kept in detention after the offence report had been compiled,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
57173/19
16/10/2019
Bagaudin Mussayevich
GAGIYEV
1961
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Nazran
27/03/2019
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
10 days of detention
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
16/04/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station on 11/04/2019 for compiling an offence report in relation to the rally on 27/03/2019,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
EUR 5,000
60672/19
15/11/2019
Albert Magometovich BALAKHOYEV
1992
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Magas
27/03/2019
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
29/05/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
62170/19
22/11/2019
Magomed-Bashir Yusupovich KATSIYEV
1964
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Magas
27/03/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
22/05/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
63395/19
28/11/2019
Magomed Akhmetovich NAKOSTKHOYEV
1972
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Magas
27/03/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
20/06/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
1661/20
13/12/2019
Murat Zelimkhanovich BEKOV
1947
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Magas
27/03/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
13/06/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
4314/20
26/12/2019
Savarbek Musayevich UZHAKHOV
1953
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Magas
27/03/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
03/07/2019
3,500
4320/20
26/12/2019
Askhap Abdurakhmanovich GOYGOV
1956
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Nazran
27/03/2019
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
27/06/2019
3,500
4334/20
26/12/2019
Rezvan Kureyshovich OZDOYEV
1991
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Magas
27/03/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
11/07/2019
3,500
6839/20
29/01/2020
Svyatoslav Sergeyevich DRUZHININ
2000
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
10 days of detention
Moscow City Court
01/08/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
8660/20
22/01/2020
Ibragim Kureyshovich DUGIYEV
1994
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda
Magas
27/03/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic
24/07/2019
3,500
14672/20
09/03/2020
Ilya Anatolyevich NIKOLAYEV
1992
Eysmont Mariya Olegovna
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
4 days of detention
Moscow City Court
10/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 27-29/07/2019 the applicant remained in detention after the offence report had been compiled,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court witnesses, including police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.