Communicated on 17 November 2020
Published on 7 December 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 54829/12
Irina Viktorovna VINOGRADOVA and Others against Russia
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details are set out in the Appendixes.
The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.The applicants’ solo demonstrations and administrative-offence proceedings
On different dates, the applicants listed in Appendix I staged solo demonstrations in Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic. In each case, ten to thirty minutes after the beginning of the demonstrations, police ordered the applicants to stop the demonstrations because they were being held in the vicinity of either the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic or the Syktyvkar Town Court. Each applicant was taken to a police station and charged there with various breaches of the established procedure for the conduct of public events, offences under Article 20.2 of the Administrative Offences Code (“the CAO”), for demonstration in the vicinity of the respective courts’ buildings in breach of section 8(2) of the of the Public Events Act. In some cases, a record of the applicants’ arrest was compiled. The applicants remained at the police station from one to three hours and then were allowed to leave.
Mr Drokin (application no. 54225/14) staged his solo demonstration in the vicinity of a district court in Tver. He was able to terminate his demonstration.
On the dates listed in the Appendixes I and II domestic courts convicted the applicants of administrative offences (Article 20.2 §§2 or 5 of the CAO) and sentenced them to fines in the amounts specified in the Appendixes. In case no. 70240/14 the Syktyvkar Town Court discontinued the proceedings on appeal, for the absence of the elements of an administrative offence in the applicant’s actions. In all other cases on the dates listed below the domestic courts upheld the conviction in the final instance.Decisions to discontinue the administrative offence proceedings and compensation proceedings in four cases
In several cases listed in Appendix I the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic set aside the convictions, quashed the relevant judgments and discontinued the administrative proceedings against the applicants for the absence of the elements of administrative offence in their actions. In each case, the Presidium found that the authorities had failed to submit evidence that the place where an applicant had stood was assigned to the territory of either the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic or the Syktyvkar Town Court under the applicable laws and regulations.
The applicants in those cases and in case no. 70240/14 sued the Ministry of Finance for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by both a violation of their right to freedom of expression and by unlawful deprivation of liberty. On various dates listed in Appendix I domestic courts dismissed their claims, having found no unlawfulness in the authorities’ actions.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that by ending their solo demonstrations and, in most of the cases, taking them to the police stations and imposing administrative sanctions the authorities acted in breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, as the authorities’ actions did not have any basis in the domestic law, and as in each case the interference was disproportionate.
The applicants in cases nos. 54829/12 (the third applicant in the second set of proceedings), 70240/14, 58468/17 and 11799/18 complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their arrests were unlawful and arbitrary.
The applicants in cases nos. 54829/12 (the third applicant Ms Sedova in the second set of proceedings), 70240/14, 72147/16, 58468/17 and 11799/18 complain under Article 6§ 1 of the Convention that, owing to the lack of a prosecuting party, the courts took on the role of the prosecution.
COMMON QUESTIONS
Do the circumstances of each case disclose an “interference” under Article 10 § 1 or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was this interference prescribed by law, shown to pursue a legitimate aim and “necessary in a democratic society” (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016; and, in so far as relevant, Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 50-59, 30 April 2019, with further references)?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. In cases nos. 54829/12 (the third applicant Ms Sedova in the second set of proceedings), 70240/14, 58468/17 and 11799/18, was there a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 5 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ escorting to the police station and arrest (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 89‑98, 4 December 2014)?
2. In cases nos. 54829/12 (complaint by the third applicant Ms Sedova in the second set of proceedings), 70240/14, 72147/16, 58468/17 and 11799/18, were the courts which dealt with the applicants’ cases impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 38-85, 20 September 2016)?
APPENDIX I
List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 in the light of Article 11 of the Convention
Restriction based on a regional ban on holding of public events in Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
Date of public event
Restrictions applied
Domestic decision (type of procedure)
Date
Court
Supervisory-review proceedings
Date, court, outcome
(where relevant)
Judgments in the compensation proceedings, final instance
(where relevant)
54829/12
08/08/2012
Irina Viktorovna VINOGRADOVA
1971
Syktyvkar
Represented by:
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
30/09/2011
10.25-10.50 a.m.
Initially, conviction of an administrative offence, Article 20.2§ 2 of the CAO, fine of 500 Russian roubles (RUB)
Administrative offence proceedings (conviction)
29/11/2011
16/02/2012 (final)
Syktyvkar Town Court
13/06/2013
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
03/10/2013
Syktyvkar Town Court
16/12/2013
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
No information on any subsequent proceedings
Aleksandr Fedorovich SHCHIGOLEV
1961
Syktyvkar
Represented by:
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
14/10/2011
5.25-5.40 p.m.
Conviction of an administrative offence, Article 20.2§ 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 500
Administrative offence proceedings (conviction)
19/12/2011
07/03/2012 (final)
Syktyvkar Town Court
11/06/2013
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
06/12/2013
Syktyvkar Town Court
13/02/2014
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
05/06/2014
1st cassation appeal rejected (same court)
11/07/2014
2nd cassation appeal rejected Supreme Court of Russia
Marina Sergeyevna SEDOVA
1988
Syktyvkar
Represented by:
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
(1st application form)
Aleksey Nikolayevich LAPTEV
(2nd application form)
4/10/2011
12.50a.m. – 1 p.m.
Initially, conviction of an administrative offence, Article 20.2§ 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 500 – conviction set aside, proceedings discontinued by way of the supervisory-review proceedings
Administrative offence proceedings (conviction)
05/12/2011
08/02/2012 (final)
Syktyvkar Town Court
24/05/2013
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
06/12/2013
Sytkyvkar Town Court
13/02/2014
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
05/06/2014
1st cassation appeal rejected (same court)
11/07/2014
2nd cassation appeal rejected Supreme Court of Russia
07/12/2016
1.30-1.45 p.m.
Conviction of an
administrative
offence, Article 20.2§ 5of the CAO
Fine of RUB 5,000
Administrative offence proceedings
01/03/2017
12/04/2017 (final)
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
57471/12
09/08/2012
1) Aleksandr Borisovich OSTROVSKIY
1964 – 20/03/2014
Kfar Yona
Russian
After the applicant’s death, his daughter expressed a wish to maintain the case:
Yelena Aleksandrovna OSTROVSKAYA
1993
Kfar Yona
Russian, Israeli
05/10/2011
4.40-4.50 p.m.
Initially, conviction under Article 20.2§ 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 500– conviction set aside, proceedings discontinued by way of the supervisory-review proceedings initiated upon the applicant’s complaint
Administrative offence proceedings (conviction)
01/12/2011
09/02/2012
Syktyvkar Town Court
19/07/2013
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
15/01/2014
Sytkyvkar Town Court
14/04/2014
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
2) Irina Petrovna VIGOVSKAYA
1965
Syktyvkar
All applicants represented by:
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
19/10/2011
9.25-9.40 a.m.
Conviction of an administrative offence, Article 20.2§ 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 1,000
29/11/2011
09/02/2012 (final)
Syktyvkar Town Court
n/a
59778/12
27/08/2012
Semen Alekseyevich TERESHONKOV
1982
Syktyvkar
25/10/2011
4.50-4.52 p.m
Initially,
Conviction under Article 20.2§ 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 500 –conviction subsequently set aside, proceedings discontinued
Administrative offence proceedings
06/12/2011
27/02/2012 (final)
Sytkyvkar Town Court
14/06/2013
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
19/05/2015
Sytkyvkar Town Court
30/07/2015
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
04/12/2015
1st cassation appeal rejected (same court)
29/01/2016
2nd cassation appeal rejected Supreme Court of Russia
Vera Petrovna TERESHONKOVA
1958
Syktyvkar
Represented by:
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
26/10/2011
4.40-4.50
Initially,
Conviction under Article 20.2§ 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 500 –conviction subsequently set aside, proceedings discontinued
Administrative offence proceedings
06/12/2011
05/04/2012 (final)
Sytkyvkar Town Court
13/06/2013
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
6320/13
09/08/2012
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
1976
Syktyvkar
21/09/2011
11.30-11.50 a.m.
Initially, conviction of an administrative offence, Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO,
fine of RUB 500 –subsequently quashed in the supervisory-review proceedings
Administrative offence proceedings
17/11/2011
09/02/2012 (final)
Syktyvkar Town Court
24/05/2013
Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
19/05/2015
Sytkyvkar Town Court
30/07/2015
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
04/12/2015
1st cassation appeal rejected (same court)
29/01/2016
2nd cassation appeal rejected Supreme Court of Russia
70240/14
21/10/2014
Erikh Erikhovich VILSON
1988
Syktyvkar
Represented by:
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
11/06/2013
5-5.10 p.m.
Initially, an administrative-offence record complied (Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO); proceedings subsequently discontinued
Administrative offence record
11/06/2013
Administrative offence proceedings:
discontinued (lack of corpus delicti)
16/08/2013 (final)
Syktyvkar Town Court
14/01/2014
Syktyvkar Town Court
21/04/2014
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
72147/16
18/11/2016
Igor Valentinovich SAZHIN
1963
Syktyvkar
Represented by:
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
10/03/2016
4.40 p.m.
Conviction under Article 20.2 § 5of the CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
Administrative offence proceedings
08/04/2016
18/05/2016
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
58468/17
01/08/2017
Nina Vasilyevna ANANINA
1984
Syktyvkar
Represented by:
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
Aleksey Nikolayevich LAPTEV
22/10/2016
11 a.m.
Conviction under Article 20.2§ 5of the CAO,
fine of RUB 10.000
Administrative offence proceedings
28/11/2016
01/02/2017 (final)
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
11799/18
30/11/2017
Darya Vladimirovna CHERNYSHEVA
1991
Sytyvkar
Represented by:
Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK
07/12/2016
2 p.m.
Conviction under Article 20.2§ 5of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000
Administrative offence proceedings
30/03/2017
31/05/2017 (final)
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
APPENDIX II
List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 in the light of Article 11 of the Convention
Restrictions based on a general ban on holding public events in the vicinity of courts’ buildings
(section 8 § 2 of the Public Events Act)
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
Place of residence
Public event
Restrictions applied
Domestic decision (type of procedure)
Date
Name of the court which issued a final decision
54225/14
15/07/2014
Aleksey Aleksandrovich DROKIN
1954
Krasnoyarsk
23/04/2013
12 a.m.-3 p.m.
Krasnoyarsk
In front of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
Applicant holding a poster, protesting against allegedly unfair outcome of a civil dispute
Conviction of an
administrative
offence, Article 20.2 of the CAO (the applicant considered an organiser of the solo demonstration)
fine of RUB 10,000
Administrative offence proceedings
08/11/2013
16/01/2014
(appeal instance)
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
04/04/2014 the applicant’s request for supervisory-review rejected by the Deputy President of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy