FIRST SECTION
CASE OF VASILYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 43656/21 and 15 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vasilyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 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, 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.
13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints 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; and 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.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. 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 in paragraph 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
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 the applicants’ complaints 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 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
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]
43656/21
12/08/2021
Andrey Valeryevich VASILYEV
1999
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic
23/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
43658/21
12/08/2021
Nikolay Vladimirovich VUSHNYAKOV
1995
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic
29/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
43660/21
12/08/2021
Pavel Nikolayevich GARAMOV
1997
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic
30/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
43663/21
12/08/2021
Yevgeniy Valeryanovich GRIGORYEV
1994
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic
18/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
43667/21
12/08/2021
Aleksey Gennadyevich YEGOROV
1987
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic
06/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
43669/21
12/08/2021
Dmitriy Gennadyevich YEFIMOV
1987
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 11,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic
30/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
46558/21
03/09/2021
Aleksandr Vladimirovich KARPOVETS
1994
Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich
Khabarovsk
Rally to support Sergey Furgal
Khabarovsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
Fine of RUB 15,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
09/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021 until 25/01/2021.
4,000
46615/21
03/09/2021
Sergey Yevgenyevich KLEPIKOV
1995
Kapishnikov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Orel
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Orel
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Orel Regional Court
26/04/2021
3,500
46934/22
14/09/2022
Sofya Andreyevna OSADCHAYA
2002
Protest against war in Ukraine
Yekaterinburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 20,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
15/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.02 p.m. until 11.50 p.m. on 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
47526/22
15/09/2022
Yevgeniy Ivanovich GOROKHOV
1983
Maksheyev Kirill Aleksandrovich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Protest against war in Ukraine
Nizhniy Novgorod
12/06/2022
article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO
Fine of RUB 30,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
17/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.25 p.m. until 6.00 p.m. on 12/06/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
47531/22
15/09/2022
Lika Alekseyevna MEDNIK
2003
Slavkin Andrey Anatolyevich
Murmansk
Protest against war in Ukraine
Murmansk
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Fine of RUB 20,000
Murmansk Regional Court
19/05/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
47816/22
24/09/2022
Nikolay Andreyevich ILNITSKIY
1991
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
26/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
09/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 9.00 p.m. on 26/02/2022 until 12.30 a.m. on 27/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
9551/23
06/02/2023
Denis Aleksandrovich STRELKOV
1983
Rally in defence of Troitski woods
Moscow
12/02/2022
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
Detention for 7 days
Moscow City Court
11/10/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. on 12/02/2022 until 9.00 a.m. on 14/02/2022
5,000
10131/23
11/02/2023
Dmitriy Bulatovich AYVAZYAN
1996
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
11/10/2022
3,500
11863/23
03/02/2023
Nadezhda Vladimirovna KRAYUSHKINA
1960
Protest against was in Ukraine
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
17/10/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 9.15 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 4.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022
4,000
13772/23
16/02/2023
Marat Khabalovich DOKHOV
1983
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
19/10/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.00 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 2.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.