FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF TYURIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 795/20 and 17 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 September 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tyurin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 July 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 against solo demonstrators. The 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 10 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016).
8. In the leading case of Novikova and Others (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 432-42, 7 February 2017; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023, and Ibragimova v. Russia, no. 68537/13, §§ 28-41, 30 August 2022).
9. 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 interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. 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 Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 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 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 (CAO); Frumkin v. Russia, no.74568/12, 5 January 2016, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; 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 complaints12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers 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 10 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and/or its Protocols 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 12 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention
(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Location
Date
Purpose of the demonstration
Administrative charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Date
Name of the court
Other relevant information
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
795/20
18/12/2019
Artem Dmitriyevich TYURIN
2000
Arshinova Valeriya Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Moscow
02/08/2019
Support of Ye. Zhukov
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 8 days
Moscow City Court
26/08/2019
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
10130/20
13/02/2020
Yulian Sergeyevich LASHKIN
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
24/07/2019
Support of LGBT community after a murder of an LGBT activist
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow Regional Court
20/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 24/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
55368/20
21/11/2020
Yekaterina Vladimirovna KORCHINSKAYA
1999
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Vladivostok
16/06/2020
Support of eco-activists
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
08/09/2020
ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of a court building
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 16/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2962/21
22/12/2020
Gleb Vladimirovich SOKOLOV
1997
Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich
Moscow
Moscow, 09/06/2020, Support of arrested activists D. Ivanov and E. Yunusov
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 15 days
22/06/2020, Moscow City Court
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
13372/21
10/03/2021
Timur Arturovich TUKHVATULLIN
2001
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
Kazan
21/08/2020
Support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
community service of 30 hours
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
30/09/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention:
(1) on 21/08/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence, and
(2) between 2.30 p.m. of 23/01/2021 and 25/01/2021, as administrative suspect,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally in support of A. Navalnyy, 23/01/2021, Kazan – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment: 14/04/2021, Supreme Court of Republic of Tatarstan.
4,000
20673/21
25/03/2021
Sergey Andreyevich DESNITSKIY
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
31/05/2020
Protest against use of force against lawyers in Kabardino-Balkaria and other regions
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/10/2020
rotation - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 31/05/2020 as an administrative suspect (the administrative offence record only compiled on 04/06/2020),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
21974/21
07/04/2021
Natalya Andreyevna BARANOVA
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
22/03/2020
Protest against politics of President Putin
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
28/10/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
23460/21
13/04/2021
Nikita Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV
2000
Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich
Moscow
Moscow
09/06/2020
Support of arrested protest activists D. Ivanov and E. Yunusov
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/10/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings -
3,500
24181/21
16/04/2021
Mariya Sergeyevna CHERNYKH
1987
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow, 07/07/2020, Support of journalist I. Safonov
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
22/10/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
42995/21
10/08/2021
Raisa Vladimirovna MOROZOVA
1954
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk
24/12/2020
Support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.1 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 500
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
10/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
52725/21
15/10/2021
Daniil Enverovich ROZOVSKIY
1997
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Moscow
23/01/2021
Support of A. Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
16/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 23/01/2021 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
4,000
30738/22
07/06/2022
Svetlana Vasilyevna NAKHIMOVICH
1948
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Novgorod
03/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 20,000
Novgorod Regional Court
20/04/2022
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; failure to draw up an escort record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
31741/22
07/06/2022
Yelena Vladimirovna PAVLOVA
1946
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Novgorod
03/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 20,000
Novgorod Regional Court
19/04/2022
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
47795/22
15/09/2022
Ilya Khaimovich MYASKOVSKIY
1971
Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
19/03/2022
Anti-war protest
(the applicant was taking pictures of another person who staged an anti-war solo demonstration)
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
06/07/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
52475/22
20/10/2022
Yelizaveta Andreyevna NEMZER
1996
Moscow
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
27/07/2022
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 24/02/2022 and (ii) on 02/03/2022, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up the offence record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Rally against the war in Ukraine, 02/03/2022, Moscow – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, final judgment of 23/06/2022 by the Moscow City Court
4,000
57638/22
19/11/2022
Maria Nikolayevna PETROVSKAYA
1985
Tyurina Kristina Olegovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
19/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court
20/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, applicant taken to a police station on 19/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3804/23
25/12/2022
Aleksandr Nikolayevich GORELOV
1984
Tyurina Kristina Olegovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Reshetikha
Nizhniy Novgorod Region
06/03/2022
Anti-war protest
(the applicant parked his car with anti-war posters on it in a town centre and left the venue)
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
25/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 07/07/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence in respect of the events of 06/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
12794/23
24/10/2022
Polina Aleksandrovna LABINSKAYA
1982
Moscow
07/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
01/07/2022
ban on public events at certain locations - the State Duma
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,
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.