FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ZOLOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 23893/15 and 32 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zolotova 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 6 April 2023,
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 participants or organisers 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 participants or organisers 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, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 10810/15, 31 January 2017) and having due regard to the issue of compliance with the six-month period under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID- related extension of the period in question), 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 Protocols thereto, 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, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; 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; and Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 72-74 and 81-82, 5 April 2022, as to administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); and Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62-65, concerning the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, there is no need to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.
14. Lastly, the Court has examined other complaints raised in application no. 73802/17 and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that they must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
16. 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 well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and declares the remainder of application no. 73802/17 inadmissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under 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 27 April 2023, 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]
23893/15
03/05/2015
Yelena Vladimirovna ZOLOTOVA
1968
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
14/09/2014
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 18,000
Moscow City Court
04/12/2014
3,500
64088/16
28/10/2016
(5 applicants)
Mikhail Vladimirovich AKSARIN
1980
Ivan Anatolyevich KARAMNOV
1988
Aleksandra Mikhaylovna LAVROVA
1985
Kseniya Anatolyevna TRETYUKHINA
1991
Marina Samuelovna SHEBELYAN
1989
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
"Moving exhibition Ne mir”
Moscow, 13/03/2016
Karamnov, Lavrova and Tretyukhina
Shebelyan
Aksarin
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
fine of
RUB 10,000
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court:
20/05/2016
22/06/2016
06/07/2016
For each applicant:
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 13/03/2016 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling offence reports,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000,
to each applicant
2665/17
27/12/2016
Andrey Mikhaylovich BAZHUTIN
1971
Arkadiy Anatolyevich MOSHNIKOV
1962
Glukhov
Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally against a road‑tax system "Platon"
Rostov-on-Don,
24/08/2016
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
to each applicant
Voronezh Regional Court
10/10/2016
3,500,
to each applicant
69342/17
22/08/2017
Mikhail Andreyevich PCHELIN
1990
Benyash
Mikhail Mikhaylovich
Sochi
Anticorruption rally
Sochi,
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
05/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
73802/17
07/09/2017
Oleg Borisovich KABATOV
1974
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg,
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 500
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
18/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12‑13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after 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
79030/17
09/11/2017
28723/18
07/06/2018
Aleksandr Iosifovich DEGTYAREV
1951
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Rostov-on-Don,
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Rostov Regional Court
19/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases
5,600
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don,
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of
RUB 150,000
Rostov Regional Court
07/12/2017
79232/17
09/11/2017
6089/18
27/12/2017
Vladimir Aleksandrovich TERENTYEV
1977
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Gatchina,
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Leningrad Regional Court
31/05/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases
3,500
-
Event for collecting petitions to the Russian President
St Petersburg,
29/04/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
27/06/2017
82860/17
30/11/2017
25320/20
23/06/2020
Illarion Gennadyevich BORTS
1985
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
02/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 and 27/07/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports (in application no. 25320/20 - the report was then compiled on 30/07/2019 only),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases
4,000
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow,
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
26/09/2019
3646/18
22/12/2017
Mariya Davidovna MOLDAVSKAYA
1970
Chertkov
Andrey Veniaminovich
St Petersburg
Opposition rally
St Petersburg,
29/04/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 500
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
27/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 29‑30/04/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - Final decision in both sets of the proceedings - 27/06/2017, St Petersburg City Court; Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution and punishment in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings
4,000
3649/18
12/12/2017
Dmitriy Sergeyevich MIKHEYEV
1972
Golubok
Sergey Aleksandrovich
The Hague
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg,
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
1 day of detention
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
27/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12‑13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - Final decision in both set of proceedings - 27/06/2017, St Petersburg City Court; Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution and punishment in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings
5,000
in respect of non‑pecuniary damage;
850,
in respect of legal costs, to be paid directly to the representative, S. Golubok
3673/18
08/01/2018
Emil Vasifovich ABDULOV
1996
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg,
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 500
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
27/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12‑13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after 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
5155/18
08/01/2018
Rasul Rafikovich ABDULIN
1992
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
12/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to a police station 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
8780/18
02/02/2018
Kirill Aleksandrovich MUKAYEV
1991
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
14/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26‑27/03/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after 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
9368/18
16/02/2018
Georgiush Ryza KASHAKHI
1989
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
16/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station 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
21407/18
23/04/2018
39979/18
09/08/2018
Irina Petrovna YEPIFANOVSKAYA
1955
Prikhodina Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Rally against political persecution
Moscow,
30/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of 10,000 RUB
Moscow City Court
24/10/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 30/06/2017 and 02/07/2017 escorting to and detention a police station for compiling offence reports,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases
4,000
Assembly to support Y. Dmitriyev
Moscow,
02/07/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Moscow City Court
16/02/2018
22814/18
30/04/2018
14296/20
22/01/2020
Nikita Dmitriyevich ROMANOV
1988
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
08/02/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 and 27/07/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases
4,000
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow, 27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
06/11/2019
28164/18
04/06/2018
Andrey Borisovich AZHIMOV
1988
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
04/12/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to and detention a police station 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
29959/18
15/06/2018
Artem Vasilyevich VOYTENKO
1983
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
Bryansk,
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Bryansk Regional Court
15/12/2017
3,500
33002/18
09/07/2018
Arsen Aleksandrovich ULLUBIEV
1985
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/01/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
33140/18
03/07/2018
Mikhail Vladimirovich STEPANETS
1978
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/01/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
39277/18
07/08/2018
Arina Andreyevna MESHCHERYAKOVA
1999
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
“Voters’ Strike” rally
Volgograd,
28/01/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
07/02/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
42072/18
24/08/2018
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich FOKANOV
1991
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
“Voters’ Strike” rally
Volgograd,
28/01/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
01/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
42080/18
24/08/2018
Yelena Aleksandrovna KOTENOCHKINA
1977
Prikhodina Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Assembly to support Y. Dmitriyev
Moscow,
02/07/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
16/03/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 02/07/2017 escorting to a police station 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
43667/18
03/09/2018
Alexandr Gershovich CHERNYY
1950
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
06/03/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to a police station 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
45692/18
06/09/2018
Aleksandr Vladislavovich ZHUKOV
1993
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Opposition rally
Perm,
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community work
Perm Regional Court
14/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
45710/18
22/09/2018
Vladimir Igorevich VINICHENKO
1990
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
22/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
49552/18
11/10/2018
Oleg Viktorovich POLYAKOV
1983
Zhdanov
Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
“Voters’ Strike” rally
Volgograd,
28/01/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
11/04/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
7369/19
28/01/2019
Aleksey Vladimirovich NEBESNYY
1987
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow,
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/08/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to a police station 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.