THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TANSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 14718/19 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 January 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tanskiy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol.
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 5 § 1 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
8. 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).
9. In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91‑96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, 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 on 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 31-58, 28 November 2013, concerning inadequate conditions of detention after conviction; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with regard to disproportionate measures against participants and organisers of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, regarding the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38‑42, 8 October 2019, with regard to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of an administrative detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92‑156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees; and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. Some applicants also raised additional complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised in the present applications and thus does not find it necessary to examine the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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;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 5 § 1 of the Convention raised by the applicants in respect of their unlawful detention, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints lodged by some of the applicants under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocol 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
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]
14718/19
06/03/2019
Ivan Andreyevich TANSKIY
1991
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
06/09/2018,
8.15 p.m.
07/09/2018,
until trial hearing, raised on appeal
Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 17/10/2018,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in a rally against pension reform, published in “VKontakte”; final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 17/10/2018, detention of 5 days,
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 suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
23703/19
16/04/2019
Timofey Borisovich FILATOV
1989
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
09/09/2018
09/09/2018,
raised in administrative proceedings
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), the complaint was raised in the administrative proceedings
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO for posting, information about a public manifestation against the pension reform organised by A. Navalnyy; final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 14/11/2018, fine of RUB 13,000
4,000
46792/19
26/08/2019
Konstantin Aleksandrovich KOTOV
1985
Nikita Vladimirovich ZAYTSEV
1997
02/03/2019,
4.15 p.m. (both applicants)
04/03/2019, unspecified time (both applicants)
Applicants taken to the police station as administrative suspects: 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 administrative suspects: 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),
Detention as administrative suspects: the applicants remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 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 all three sets of administrative proceedings (two sets of administrative proceedings of the applicant Mr Kotov and one set of administrative proceedings of the applicant Mr Zaytsev),
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicants were subjected to administrative penalties following their participation in the manifestations:
02/03/2019 - manifestation in support of Azat Miftakhov (both applicants), Leninskiye Gory, Moscow, article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, final decisions: Moscow City Court, 04/04/2019, fine of RUB 15,000 (Mr Zaytsev), fine of RUB 20,000 (Mr Kotov),
06/01/2019 - public assembly (Mr Kotov), Moscow, article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, final decision: Moscow City Court, 20/09/2019, detention of 10 days
5,000 (to be paid to Mr Kotov)
4,000 (to be paid to Mr Zaytsev)
41164/21
24/07/2021
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich KOCHEGIN
1998
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
22/01/2021,
6 a.m.
29/01/2021,
2.20 p.m.
20/04/2021,
1.36 a.m.
22/01/2022,
2.15 p.m. (hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case)
29/01/2021,
5.30 p.m. (hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case)
20/04/2021,
12 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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction for calls to participate in unauthorised rallies in support of Mr A. Navalnyy:
1) calls on Telegram messenger, article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO; final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 28/01/2021, detention of 7 days,
2) calls to inmates serving administrative detention
sentences with the applicant and on the applicant’s personal page in “Vkontakte” social network, article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO; final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 04/02/2021, detention of 10 days,
3) calls on Telegram messenger, article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO; final decision: Volgograd Region Court,
26/04/2021, 25 days of administrative detention,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – two sets of the proceedings, final decisions: Volgograd Regional Court, 28/01/2021 and 26/04/2021,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the administrative detention sentences imposed on the applicant were enforced immediately after the respective decisions of the first-instance court on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
6,000
13921/22
10/03/2022
Arseniy Vasilyevich SHCHEGLOV
1992
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
03/11/2021,
7 p.m.
04/11/2021,
1 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision:
Kaliningrad Regional Court, 21/12/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 CAO for calls on Instagram to participate in an unauthorised rally against QRcodes, final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, 21/12/2021, fine of RUB 20,000
4,000
22164/22
11/04/2022
Konstantin Aleksandrovich KOTOV
1985
25/11/2021,
4 p.m.
24/02/2022,
8 p.m.
26/11/2021,
until court hearing, raised on appeal on 02/12/2021(application of 11/04/2022)
25/02/2022,
until court hearing, raised on appeal on 10/03/2022 (application of 09/07/2022)
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 (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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events:
1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 25/11/2021 against liquidation of Memorial organisation, published in Telegram; final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/12/2021, detention of 9 days;
2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 24/02/2022 against the war, published on Facebook; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/03/2022, detention of 30 days,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 02/12/2021 and 10/03/2022,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction and transportation on 14, 15, 16, 19, 27/08/2019 and 3, 4, 5/09/2019, 10-12 inmates in a compartment for 7, restricted access to toilet, hot food and water; IK-2, 28/11/2019 - 30/03/2020, 11/06/2020 - 16/12/2020, 2 sq. m. of personal space, washing once a week, hair short, uncomfortable position during searches, no gloves; compensation claim, allowed in part, in particular, as regards the gloves, conditions of transport and lack of a window for transfer of documents in the visiting room, Supreme Court of Russia, 29/01/2024, RUB 30,000 (approximately EUR 300)
5,000
28374/22
25/05/2022
Yegor Sergeyevich ALASHEYEV
1983
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
19/02/2021
19/02/2021
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 (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)
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative
conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for posting a call on a social network to participate in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy on 18/02/2021 in Samara; final decision: Samara Regional Court,
25/11/2021, detention of 7 days,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Samara Regional Court, 25/11/2021,
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 suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
12718/23
24/10/2022
Yevgeniya Aleksandrovna MINAYEVA
1993
10/03/2022,
12.15 p.m.
10/03/2022,
8 p.m.
Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/06/2022,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for posting on the applicant’s VKontakte web page a call to participate in the anti-war protest in Moscow on unspecified date; final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/06/2022, detention of 5 days,
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 suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.