SECOND SECTION
CASE OF TITOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 3551/18 and 14 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Titova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 May 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. 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 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 well-established case-law (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, 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 remainder of the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the proceedings and 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 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 it is not necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ 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 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 13 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
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 and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
3551/18
23/12/2017
Anastasiya Pavlovna TITOVA
1983
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Rally against corruption
Sochi
12/06/2017
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
26/07/2017
3,500
22909/19
10/04/2019
Yekaterina Aleksandrovna VASILYEVA
2000
Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Vladivostok
Manifestation against the increase of the retirement age
Vladivostok
01/07/2018
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
40 hours’ community work
Primorye Regional Court
16/10/2018
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 28/07/2018 and 09/09/20218 - 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 complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings)
4,000
49384/21
13/09/2021
Mikhail Vladimirovich BYKOV
1987
Protest rally
Dzerzhinsk
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
21/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 26/04/2021 (4 days after his participation in the protest rally) - 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 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
49660/21
16/09/2021
Olga Zhanovna MALISHEVSKAYA
1972
Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
Novorossiysk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Anapa
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
17/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 1.20 p.m. to 5.30 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 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
52250/21
01/10/2021
Mikhail Aleksandrovich SUKHOTIN
1957
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
06/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. till 10.30 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
53236/21
04/10/2021
Aleksandr Ivanovich PAKHARUKOV
2002
Kapustin Vladimir Yakovlevich
Yekaterinburg
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Yekaterinburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours’ community work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
01/06/2021
3,500
57826/21
18/11/2021
Yegor Konstantinovich PAVLOV
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
27/05/2021
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 from 4.40 p.m. on 23/01/2021 till 10 p.m. on 25/01/2021 - 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 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art. 29.6(4) CAO); 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
4,000
3541/22
15/12/2021
Maksim Alekseyevich RUBAYLOV
1999
Valenkov Andrey Olegovich
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
16/06/2021
3,500
37095/22
13/07/2022
Vladimir Sergeyevich ZALUZHSKIY
1993
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
9 days’ administrative arrest
St Petersburg City Court
14/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 3.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 12.30 a.m. on 08/03/2022 - 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; 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,
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
46210/22
13/09/2022
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna BLAGOVESHCHENSKAYA
1999
Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Anti-war protest
Nizhniy Novgorod
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
18/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 3.10 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 1.20 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: 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 complaints were raised in the administrative proceeding,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
46220/22
13/09/2022
Yuliya Marsimovna KISELEVA
1996
Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Anti-war protest
Nizhniy Novgorod
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
18/05/2022
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; the complaint was raised 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
46244/22
11/09/2022
Anna Andreyevna KLYUKOVSKAYA
2000
Sabirov Rim Faridovich
Kazan
Anti-war protest
Kazan
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
11/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 24/02/2022 - 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 in the administrative proceedings
4,000
46750/22
14/09/2022
Valentin Igorevich SOVKOV
1995
Gerasimova Yekaterina Viktorovna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
31/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 27/02/2022 - 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 in the administrative proceedings
4,000
47963/22
14/09/2022
Alena Aleksandrovna KROTOVA
1990
Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Anti-war protest
Nizhniy Novgorod
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
18/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 3 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 11 a.m. on 08/03/2022 - 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 in the administrative proceedings
4,000
48647/22
01/10/2022
Zakhar Alekseyevich YERYUSHOV
2003
Sabirov Rim Faridovich
Kazan
Anti-war protest
Samara
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Samara Regional Court
02/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 4.05 p.m. to 8.05 p.m. on 27/02/2022 - Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three‑hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)‑(4) CAO); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.