FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SOKOLOVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 14129/20 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sokolovskaya 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 6 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 applicants were represented by Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich, a lawyer practising in Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. 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 APPLICATIONS6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
JURISDICTION7. 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 CONVENTION8. 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.
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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”.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. 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 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.
14. 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 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 Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS15. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. 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, 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 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 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 27 June 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 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
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 and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
14129/20
27/02/2020
Tatyana Kirillovna SOKOLOVSKAYA
1961
Yekaterina Sergeyevna TUROBOVA
1960
Ms Sokolovskaya: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Yarensk
09/06/2019
Ms Turobova: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Yarensk
09/06/2019
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000 (Ms Sokolovskaya)
fine of
RUB 10,000 (Ms Turobova)
Arkhangelsk Regional Court
27/08/2019
Arkhangelsk Regional Court
27/08/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - in the proceedings against both Ms Sokolovskaya and Ms Turobova
3,500
28235/20
16/06/2020
Aleksandr Vitalyevich VLASOV
1978
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
20 hours of community work
fine of
RUB 500
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
18/12/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
18/12/2019
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 administrative proceedings against the applicant,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 18/12/2019 (Article 19.3 of CAO and Article 20.2.2. § 1)
4,000
28238/20
16/06/2020
Mikhail Yevgenyevich YARYGIN
1976
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
fine of
RUB 500
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
18/12/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
11/12/2019
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 proceedings against the applicant,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 11/12/2019 and 18/12/2019 (Article 19.3 of CAO and Article 20.2.2. § 1),
4,000
33849/20
15/06/2020
Sergey Aleksandrovich BAZLUTSKIY
1979
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
fine of
RUB 500
Arkhangelsk Regional Court
07/11/2019
Arkhangelsk Regional Court
10/12/2019
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 proceedings against the applicant,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Arkhangelsk Regional Court / 01/11/2019 and 10/12/2019 (Article 20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 of CAO)
4,000
38404/20
14/06/2020
Anna Yuryevna SHCHEGORTSOVA
1985
Konstantin Mikhaylovich KORENKOV
1976
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Ms Shchegortsova)
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Korenkov)
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Korenkov)
fine of
RUB 5,000 (concerning Ms Shchegortsova)
fine of
RUB 5,000 (concerning Mr Korenkov)
fine of
RUB 500 (concerning Mr Korenkov)
Supreme Court of Komi Republic
18/12/2019
Supreme Court of Komi Republic
04/12/2019
Supreme Court of Komi Republic
11/12/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - proceedings against both applicants
3,500
38418/20
14/06/2020
Dmitriy Viktorovich NOVOZHILOV
1978
Nikita Vyacheslavovich ALEYNIK
1996
Mr Novozhilov: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
Mr Novozhilov: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
Mr Aleynik: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
Mr Aleynik: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Novozhilov)
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Novozhilov)
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Aleynik)
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Aleynik)
fine of
RUB 10,000 (concerning Mr Novozhilov)
fine of
RUB 500 (concerning Mr Novozhilov)
fine of
RUB 5,000 (concerning Mr Aleynik)
fine of
RUB 500 (concerning Mr Aleynik)
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
13/11/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
13/11/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
06/11/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
20/11/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings – in all sets of the proceedings against both applicants,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicants were convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / (Mr Novozhilov: 13/12/2019 and 13/12/2019 and Mr Aleynik: 06/11/2019 and 20/11/2019 (Article 19.3 of CAO and Article 20.2.2. § 1)
4,000
38439/20
14/06/2020
Olga Aleksandrovna FEDULOVA
1976
Oleg Andreyevich SUKHAREV
1975
Ms Fedulova: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
Mr Sukharev: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
Mr Sukharev: protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2019
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO, (concerning Ms Fedulova)
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Sukharev)
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (concerning Mr Sukharev)
fine of
RUB 5,000 (concerning Ms Fedulova)
fine of
RUB 5,000 (concerning Mr Sukharev)
fine of
RUB 500 (concerning Mr Sukharev)
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
11/12/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
04/12/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
11/12/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - in respect of both applicants,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - Mr Sukharev was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 04/12/2019 and 11/12/2019 (Article 20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO),
4,000
41313/20
27/08/2020
Oleg Vasilyevich LYZHIN
1990
protest against construction of a landfill in Shiyes
Mezhyog
27/08/2018
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
20 hours of community work
fine of
RUB 1,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
27/11/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
11/12/2019
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 proceedings against the applicant,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice in relation to the same protest / Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi / 27/11/2019 and 11/12/2019 (Article 20.2.2. § 1 and Article 19.3 of CAO)
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.