FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF YERMOLAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 48029/21 and 16 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Yermolayeva and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 February 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. They 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 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 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 (the CAO); 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; and Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62‑65 as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.
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 the above paragraphs, 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 these applications as they relate to the 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 22 February 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 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]
48029/21
09/09/2021
Yekaterina Valeryevna YERMOLAYEVA
2002
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Stavropol
29/01/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Stavropol Regional Court
10/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
56658/21
20/10/2021
Nikolay Aleksandrovich MATVEYEV
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Tambov
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
and
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
administrative warning
Tambov Regional Court
22/04/2021
Tambov Regional Court
30/08/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - lack of a prosecuting party at oral court hearings in respect of both sets of proceedings;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in the first set of proceedings was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO;
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings.
5,000
56852/21
10/11/2021
Aleksey Leonidovich DAVYDOV
1972
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Yekaterinburg
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community work
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
04/08/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
56853/21
15/11/2021
Pavel Sergeyevich SADOVSKIY
1974
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
19/05/2021
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 - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 10.40 a.m. until 7.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021
4,000
56856/21
15/11/2021
Maksim Dmitriyevich PANTELEYEV
1998
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
19/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 10.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 11 a.m. on 03/02/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
5,000
56864/21
10/11/2021
Tatyana Aleksandrovna SHINKARENKO
1993
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Krasnoyarsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
13/05/2021
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 - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.20 p.m. until 8.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021
4,000
56879/21
10/11/2021
Andrey Vladimirovich PONOMAREV
1963
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Omsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Omsk Regional Court
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;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. until 7.40 p.m. on 23/01/2021
4,000
56900/21
10/11/2021
Nikolay Pavlovich RYABOV
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 for 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
57040/21
10/11/2021
Aleksey Igorevich KOPTELOV
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.30 a.m. until 6.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
57043/21
10/11/2021
Sergey Vadimovich ANISIMOV
1994
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
28/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.55 p.m. until 10 p.m. on 23/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
24857/22
06/08/2021
Maryam Mansurovna SALARZAY
1997
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
06/04/2021
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
24899/22
06/08/2021
Kseniya Yuryevna SERGEYEVA
1994
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
04/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 5 p.m. on 03/02/2021;
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
24916/22
06/08/2021
Aleksey Alekseyevich STERLIKOV
1991
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 7 days
Moscow City Court
09/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.45 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 10 a.m. on 03/02/2021;
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
24999/22
06/08/2021
Vladislav Maksimovich CHISTOBAYEV
1997
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional 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 - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. to 9.10 p.m. on 23/01/2021
4,000
25015/22
06/08/2021
Yekaterina Sergeyevna CHISTOBAYEVA
1998
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
16/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.59 p.m. until 9.10 p.m. on 23/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings
4,000
25023/22
06/08/2021
Nikita Yevgenyevich SHCHERBINA
1998
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for13 days
Moscow City Court
08/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 6 p.m. on 03/02/2021;
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
25179/22
15/02/2022
Aleksandr Nikolayevich DEMIDENKO
1962
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
In support of political prisoners
Belgorod
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Belgorod Regional Court
13/09/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 for 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.