Communicated on 16 November 2020 Published on 7 December 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 8793/17 Aleksandr Anatolyevich FERENETS against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended)

The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details are set out in the Appendix.

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

In each case, the applicants and several other persons, in rotation, staged solo demonstrations at various locations in Moscow, on the dates specified in the Appendix. Each of them submitted that no other persons participated in similar demonstrations around them at the same time as the applicants. In some cases, other people were standing not far from the applicants, holding no posters, waiting for their turn to stage their solo demonstrations or waiting for the applicants to terminate their solo pickets.

In each case, the police considered that the above amounted to a group event in the form of a picket requiring prior notification of the competent authority. All applicants were arrested by police officers and taken to various police stations of Moscow, where the police officers recorded their administrative escorting and administrative arrest for the purpose of compiling an administrative-offence record. At the police stations each applicant was charged with a breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events under Article 20.2 §§ 2, 5 or 8 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”), as specified in the Appendix. All applicants disagreed, maintaining that they had staged solo demonstrations.

The applicants in case no. 83510/17 remained at the police station for approximately 43 hours, and then were transferred to the domestic court and released after the examination of their cases. All other applicants spent approximately three hours at the police stations and were then released.

On the dates specified in the Appendix domestic courts examined the applicants ’ cases in the absence of a prosecuting party and convicted the applicants under various sub-sections of Article 20.2 of the CAO of participating in an event “with a group of people” without prior notification and sentenced them to fines. The courts relied on the administrative records, the reports and explanations of the police officers, as well as letters from the Moscow Government or the Prefecture of Moscow to the effect that no notification of any public event had been received on the relevant dates.

In all cases the defence asked to call as witnesses the police officers who, had produced reports on the circumstances of the case, and/or had recorded the applicants ’ administrative escorting and arrest, and/or had drawn up administrative-offence records. In all cases but in case of Ms Zakharova (no. 40428/18) the courts rejected the requests.

In cases of all applicants but Ms Tarvid , on the dates specified in the Appendix the Moscow City Court heard the cases in the absence of the prosecuting party and upheld the convictions on appeal.

In case no. 83526/17 the Moscow City Court quashed the first-instance court ’ s decision on appeal and discontinued the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant, as the administrative offence record had been drawn up in her absence, in breach of the CAO requirements.

In case no. 40428/18 the Moscow City Court quashed the first-instance court ’ s decision as the lower court had examined the case in the absence of the applicant ’ s lawyer, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 28 February 2018 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow examined the case afresh. The first-instance court found, in particular, that different parts of the administrative offence record in respect of Ms Tarvid had been drawn up and signed by different persons, in breach of the CAO requirements. Accordingly, the court declared the administrative-offence record inadmissible evidence and discontinued the proceedings, for the absence of the event of an administrative offence in the applicant ’ s actions.

The applicant brought two separate sets of civil proceedings for compensation of non-pecuniary damage resulting from two counts of alleged violations of her rights guaranteed by Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention. By the time of lodging of her applications with the Court, the civil cases were pending before domestic courts. No updates were provided.

After their arrest at 4.00 p.m. on 6 May 2017 and charges being brought, both applicants in case no. 83510/17 were placed in a cell at Zamoskvoretskiy police station, where they remained until 10 a.m. on 8 May 2017. Their personal belongings, including the first applicant ’ s pectoral cross, were seized from them on admission to the cell. The cell measured about 2 sq. m. and housed two inmates. It was poorly lit, had a concrete floor, no window, no ventilation, no sanitary equipment and no furniture except for a bench. The artificial light was never switched off disturbing the applicants ’ sleep. Access to the toilet facilities was restricted; there was no toilet paper at the sanitary facilities. The applicants were not provided with any bedding, mattress, food or drinking water and were not allowed to go outdoors for a walk.

On 8 May 2017 they were transferred to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court. They were not provided with food and water at the court.

For a summary of relevant domestic law provisions and practice concerning regulations relating to the conduct of public events, liability for breaches committed during such events, and administrative escort and arrest, see Lashmankin and Others , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 216 ‑ 312, 7 February 2017, and Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 47-84, 26 April 2016.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants in case no. 83510/17 complain under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of their detention on 6-8 May 2017 in the police station and in the District Court building and under Article 13 about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their grievance under Article 3.

All the applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 that their administrative escorting and arrest were unlawful and disproportionate. The applicants in case no. 83510/17 complain under the same provision that their administrative arrest on 6-8 May 2017 had no legal basis and constituted an unreasonable and disproportionate measure.

The applicants in all cases (including the second and the third applicant in case no. 83526/17 and the second applicant in case no. 40428/18 ) complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that, owing to the lack of a prosecuting party, the first-instance and the appeal courts took on the role of the prosecution. They submit that the courts were not impartial and that they rejected nearly all the requests and applications lodged by the defence, including, in cases nos. 20017/17 and 64244/17, the requests to call defence witnesses.

All of the applicants complain under Article 6 § 3(d) that they were unable to examine the police officers responsible for their arrest and detention.

All of the applicants further complain that by terminating the applicants ’ solo demonstrations and taking them to the police station the authorities acted in breach of Articles 10 (applicati ons nos. 20017/17, 43150/17 and 64244/17) and 11 of the Convention (all applicants) and, in particular, that the authorities ’ actions did not have any basis in the domestic law.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. In each case, was there a violation of the applicants ’ rights under Article 5 of the Convention on account of the applicants ’ escorting to the police stations and arrests (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no. 76204/11 , §§ 89-98, 4 December 2014) ?

2. As regards each applicant ’ s trial, 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)?

3. Do the circumstances of each case (the termination of a demonstration, escorting to the police station, detention there and prosecution under the Code of Administrative Offences) disclose an “interference” under Article 10 § 1 or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? Was the interference “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” (see Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 222-25, 26 April 2016 , ) ?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. Applications nos. 8793/17, 9576/17, 20017/17, 43150/17, 64244/17, 79503/17, 83510/17 and 83526/17 (in so far as the complaints by Ms Ryabikova and Ms Zakharova are concerned). Were the applicants able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, and, in cases nos. 20017/17 and 64244/17 , witnesses in favour of the applicants as requested by them (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100 ‑ 31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05 , §§ 139-49, 18 December 2018)?

2 . Application no. 83510/17. Were the conditions of the applicants ’ detention in the police station from 6 to 8 May 2017 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Did they have an effective remedy for their complaint in respect of poor conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3?

3 . Applications nos. 83526/17 and 40428/18. The parties are invited to inform the Court about the outcome of the civil proceedings brought by Ms Tarvid and to submit copies of the relevant documents.

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

year of birth

place of residence

Public event:

Location

Date

Details

Administrative escorting and arrest

Conviction

Sanction

Dates

8793/17

09/01/2017

Aleksandr Anatolyevich FERENETS

1971Moscow

Represented by

Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO

19/03/2016

1 Manezhnaya Square in Moscow

Solo demonstrations, together with several other persons, in rotation, to support Mr Ildar Dadin after his criminal conviction in late 2015

4.30-4.40 p.m. both applicants arrested by police officers,

10 minutes later taken to the Kitay ‑ Gorod District Police Department of Moscow.

Approximately three hours later both applicants were released

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Each applicant:

A fine of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB)

24/05/2016

Tverskoy District Court

30/08/2016

(upheld on appeal)

20017/17

27/02/2017

Tatyana Dmitriyevna ILYUSHNIKOVA

1960Vidnoye

04/05/2016

Tverskoy District Court

09/09/2016 (upheld on appeal)

9576/17

21/01/2017

Darya Olegovna YATSENKO

1990Lyubertsy

Represented by

Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO

5 April 2016

Shortly before 1.55 p.m

in front of the State Duma in Moscow

A series of solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, to protest against corruption in the wake of the publication of the “Panama Papers”

1.55 p.m

arrested by the police and taken to the Tverskoy District Police Department of Moscow.

At 5.30 p.m. the applicant was released.

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO

A fine of RUB 10,000

06/06/2016

Tverskoy District Court

28/09/2016 (upheld on appeal)

43150/17

08/06/2017

Olga Yakovlevna SONINA

1950Moscow

22 September 2016

21 Ilyinka Street in Moscow [1]

Solo demonstrations, in rotation, to protest against the introduction in the Russian Criminal Code of Article 212.1allowing for criminal prosecution for a repeated breach of the rules on public gatherings.

6.40 p.m.

Both applicants arrested, ten minutes later taken to the Kitay ‑ Gorod District Police Department.

Both applicants:

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Ms Sonina :

A fine of RUB 10,000

05/10/2016

Tverskoy District Court

08/12/2016

(upheld on appeal)

64244/17

01/08/2017

Mariya Aleksandrovna RYABIKOVA

1974Moscow

1) At some point in the afternoon Ms Ryabikova staged a solo demonstration, holding a poster. She finished her demonstration, took away the poster and went some distance from where she had been demonstrating.

2) At 6.30 p.m

Ms Sonina took her place to stage her solo demonstration.

At 6.50 p.m. a police officer recorded their administrative arrest .

At 8.40 p.m. both applicants were released.

Ms Ryabikova :

A fine of RUB 20,000

The court applied an increased fine as Ms Ryabikova has already been convicted for similar violations

05/10/2016

Tverskoy District Court

06/02/2017 (appeal)

79503/17

21/10/2017

Ildar Ildusovich DADIN

1982Zheleznodorozhnyy

02/04/2017

4.30-4.50 p.m.

Solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, in front of the Moscow Department of the Interior Office (38, Petrovka St.), to protest against arrests and detention of participants of an anti-corruption manifestation

4.50 p.m.

All the applicants arrested, taken to the Tverskoy District Police Department.

5 p.m.

The applicants ’ administrative arrest and escorting recorded, administrative-offence record compiled.

Shortly thereafter

the applicants were

released.

All the applicants:

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO

A fine of RUB 15,000

02/05/2017

Tverskoy District Court

28/06/2017

(upheld on appeal)

Yuliya Vladimirovna USPENSKAYA

1981Sacramento

A fine of RUB 10,000

02/05/2017

Tverskoy District Court

02/08/2017 (upheld on appeal)

Sergey Borisovich RYAPOLOV

1974Moscow

Represented by

Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO

A fine of RUB 10,000

04/05/2017

Tverskoy District Court

16/08/2017 (upheld on appeal)

83510/17

23/10/2017

Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA

1949Arlington

06/05/2017

At some point before 4 p.m.

Solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, at the Bolotnaya Square in Moscow, to support participants of the public assembly at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012 after their criminal conviction within the “ Bolotnaya ” case

4.00 p.m.

Both applicants arrested, taken to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Police Department.

The applicants ’ administrative arrest and escorting recorded, administrative-offence record compiled (initially, under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO

in respect of both of them)

Both applicants placed in a temporary detention cell at the police station, remained there until 08/05/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO

A fine of RUB 20,000

08/05/2017

Zamoskvoretskiy District Court

14/06/2017

(upheld on appeal)

Mariya Aleksandrovna RYABIKOVA

1974Moscow

Represented by

Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO

Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO

A fine of RUB 150,000

08/05/2017

Zamoskvoretskiy District Court

14/06/2017

(upheld on appeal)

83526/17

07/11/2017

Tatyana Grigoryevna TARVID

1953Khotkovo

04/01/2017

At some point between 12 p.m. and 4.50 p.m.

Federal Service for Execution of Sentences (FSIN)

Solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, to support Ildar Dadin and to protest against his ill-treatment in detention

4.50 p.m.

All the applicants arrested, taken to the Tverskoy District Police Department.

The applicants ’ administrative arrest and escorting recorded, administrative-offence record compiled

Shortly thereafter

the applicants were

released.

All the applicants:

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Ms Tarvid :

Initially, a fine of RUB 10,000;

Then proceedings discontinued

04/04/2017

Zamoskvoretskiy District Court

20/06/2017 (final)

Conviction quashed on appeal, proceedings discontinued

Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA

1949Arlington

Each applicant:

A fine of RUB 15,000

04/04/2017

Zamoskvoretskiy District Court

14/07/2017

(final)

Mariya Aleksandrovna RYABIKOVA

1974Moscow

Represented by

Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO

04/04/2017

Zamoskvoretskiy District Court

02/08/2017

(final)

40428/18

10/08/2018

Tatyana Grigoryevna TARVID

1953Khotkovo

30/06/2017

Moscow

Pushkinskaya Square

Solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, to support political prisoners in Russia

7.30 p.m.

Both applicants arrested, taken to the Tverskoy District Police Department.

8.10 p.m.

The applicants ’ administrative arrest and escorting recorded, administrative-offence record compiled

10.15 p.m.

both applicants

released

Both applicants:

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Ms Tarvid :

Initially, a fine of RUB 15,000;

Then proceedings discontinued

10/07/2017

Tverskoy District Court

12/01/2018

Conviction quashed on appeal, case remitted

28/02/2018 (final) proceedings discontinued

Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA

1949Arlington

Represented by

Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO

Ms Zakharova:

A fine of RUB 10,000

21/12/2017

Tverskoy District Court

(full text issued on 25/12/2017)

20/03/2018 (final)

[1] The building identified as “ the building used by the President of the Russian Federation’s Administration ” by Ms Ryabikova, as “ the Permanent Representation of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic in Moscow ” by Ms Sonina.