Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ANDREYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 35031/13 and 21 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 March 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Andreyev and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli , President , Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 February 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 organisers and/or participants of public assemblies. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and/or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.

7. 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).

8. 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 cases.

9. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit 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”.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

11. Some of 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.

12. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocol in the light of its findings in the light of its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018; Kalyapin v. Russia , no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019; and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34 ‑ 36, 8 October 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, related to examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO), Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 178 ‑ 91, 10 April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, concerning lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal and immediate execution of a sentence of administrative detention).

13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings.

14. Furthermore, in application no. 55071/17 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 of the Convention.

15. The Court 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, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

16. 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.”

17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, most recently, Savelov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 62815/10 and 5 others, 1 December 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(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 2 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli 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

(in euros) [1]

35031/13

20/05/2013

Vladimir Fedorovich ANDREYEV

1973Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Picketing related to journalistic issues

Moscow

05/12/2012

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow

31/01/2013

3,000

44943/17

26/05/2017

Aleksey Aleksandrovich DEMENYUK

1986Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Opposition manifestation

Moscow

26/03/2017

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

15 days of administrative detention

Moscow City Court

03/04/2017

Art. 5 (1) - overnight detention as administrative suspect from 26/03/2017 to 28/03/2017, in excess of 3 hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; the applicant remained in detention even after the said record was completed;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court

03/04/2017

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO

3,900

54001/17

17/07/2017

Eduard Aleksandrovich GOLUBNICHIY

1989Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Opposition manifestation

Moscow

26/03/2017

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

10 days of administrative detention

Moscow City Court

31/03/2017

Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 26/03/2017 - 28/03/2017, in excess of 3 hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, the applicant remained in detention even after the said record was completed

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO

3,900

55071/17

17/07/2017

Ansar Gilniakhmetovich AKHMETOV

1951Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Opposition manifestation

Naberezhnye Chelny

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 5,000

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

21/06/2017

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 21/06/2017

3,900

55072/17

17/07/2017

Aleksey Konstantinovich SAMOKHIN

1991Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

March against corruption

Bryansk

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

25 hours of community works

Bryansk Regional Court

31/05/2017

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Bryansk Regional Court

31/05/2017

3,900

70882/17

07/09/2017

Oleg Olegovich PROSIN

1994Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

"Strall against corruption" picket

Kostroma

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Kostroma Regional Court

27/04/2017

Art. 5 (1) – escorting and detention as administrative suspect on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence

3,900

78275/17

03/11/2017

Valentina Vasilyevna TOLMACHEVA

1947Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption manifestation

Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Rostov Regional Court

25/05/2017

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 25/05/2017

3,900

78277/17

03/11/2017

Igor Yuryevich LYAMIN

1967Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption manifestation

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Tula Regional Court

04/05/2017

Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 26/03/2017, from 2.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., in excess of 3 hours for the 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 the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Tula Regional Court

04/05/2017

3,900

24191/18

08/05/2018

Andrey Igorevich KOROBTSOV

1990Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Picket in support to Navalnyy

Smolensk

07/10/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Smolensk Regional Court

21/11/2017

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Smolensk Regional Court, 21/11/2017

3,900

24204/18

08/05/2018

Sergey Valeryevich SMIRNOV

1981Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Picket against the shutting down of the web channels on Youtube

Moscow

01/10/2017

Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fines of RUB 500 and RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

24/11/2017

Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect in excess of 3 hours, from 01/10/2017 to 03/10/2017, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; the applicant remained in detention even after the said record had been completed;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court, 24/11/2017

3,900

54005/18

01/11/2018

Alisa Yuryevna GORDEYEVA

1990Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna

Moscow

Manifestation against ban of the Telegram messenger

Moscow

16/04/2018

Article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

30/05/2018

Art. 5 (1) - detention of the applicant from 16/04/2018 to 17/04/2018, in excess of 3 hours, for the 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 the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court

30/05/2018

3,900

55233/19

07/10/2019

Aleksey Viktorovich LEONTYEV

1980Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich

Novocheboksarsk

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

14/08/2019

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court

14/08/2019

3,900

60220/19

12/11/2019

Sergey Andreyevich ASAINOV

1992Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

30/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 03/08/2019, in excess of 3 hours, from 4.40 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 00.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; the time of arrest noted therein was at variance with the actual time of the apprehension; the applicant remained in detention even after the said record was completed;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court

30/08/2019

3,900

6875/20

23/01/2020

Nikita Sergeyevich IVANOV

1986Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow, Tverskaya street

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

16/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect from 5.10 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 05.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019, in excess of 3 hours, for the 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 the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court

16/10/2019

3,900

8321/20

28/01/2020

Aleksandr Sergeyevich FINIAREL

1994Eysmont Mariya Olegovna

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

administrative detention of 7 days

Moscow City Court

02/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) – overnight detention as administrative suspect from 27/07/2019 to 28/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; the applicant remained in detention even after the said record was completed, until the hearing in his administrative-offence case;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/08/2019

3,900

8585/20

29/01/2020

Dmitriy Vasilyevich SHCHERBAKOV

1989Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich

Sochi

Artistic manifestation (“Monstratsiya”)

Kursk

01/05/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Kursk Regional Court

23/08/2019

3,000

8602/20

29/01/2020

Yaroslav Gennadyevich UGLITSKIY

1999Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich

Sochi

Artistic manifestation (“Monstratsiya”)

Kursk

01/05/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Kursk Regional Court

23/08/2019

3,000

8605/20

29/01/2020

Mariya Olegovna ZHUKOVA

2000Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich

Sochi

Artistic manifestation (“Monstratsiya”)

Kursk

01/05/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Kursk Regional Court

27/08/2019

3,000

9244/20

03/02/2020

Bogdan Nikolayevich DUMA

1993Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

28/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - overnight detention as administrative suspect from 03/08/2019 to 04/08/2019, in excess of 3 hours, for the 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 the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court

28/08/2019

3,900

9489/20

12/02/2020

Mikhail Ivanovich KOSENKOV

1963Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

02/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect from 4.05 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 00.15 a.m. on 04/08/2019, in excess of 3 hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence

Art. 6 (1) – 1) lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court

02/10/2019

3,900

28774/20

03/07/2020

Rostislav Dmitriyevich RYKOV

1991Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

28/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) – escorting and detention as administrative suspect on 27/07/2019, from 03.00 to 8.15 p.m., for the 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 the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court

28/11/2019

3,900

31927/20

20/06/2020

Stepan Mikhaylovich MINAYEV

1987Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

10/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) – escorting and overnight detention as administrative suspect from 27/07/2019 in the evening to 28/07/2019, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, whereas that report was drawn up three days later, in the applicant’s absence;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court

10/10/2019

3,900

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Menu

CASE OF ANDREYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF ANDREYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI