Communicated on 29 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 65507/14 Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. The applicants are represented by Mr Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak , a human-rights defender based in Syktyvkar.

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

On different dates the applicants staged solo demonstrations in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic, in the vicinity of either the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic or the Syktyvkar Town Court.

In each case, ten to fifty minutes after the beginning of the demonstrations police ordered the applicants to stop the demonstrations because they were being held in the vicinity of one of the above buildings (see the Appendix for details). The applicants were taken to the police station. At the police station they were charged 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 (see below).

In no case a record of the applicants ’ escorting and arrest was compiled. The applicants remained at the police station from one to three hours and were then allowed to leave.

On various dates the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic by final decisions discontinued the administrative proceedings against the applicants for the absence of the elements of an administrative offence in their actions. In each case, the court 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 Town Court under the applicable laws and regulations.

The applicants sued the Ministry of Finance for compensation for both a violation of their right to freedom of expression by way of solo demonstration and for unlawful deprivation of liberty, in particular, the failure to record their administrative escorting and administrative arrest.

On various dates the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed their action, having found no unlawfulness in the authorities ’ actions. On the dates specified in the Appendix the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the judgments on appeal. In each case, the courts observed as follows:

(a) Having regard to Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention and the ruling of the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia dated 27 June 2013 (concerning the application of the Convention by courts of general jurisdiction), the police ’ s action in taking the applicant to the police station had been proportionate and had pursued a legitimate aim; it had been of short duration, and had not involved any recourse to physical force.

(b) The measure of taking the applicant to the police station had been aimed at ensuring prosecution for an administrative offence, including the drawing up of an arrest record. The subsequent court ’ s decision to discontinue the administrative proceedings against the applicant did not render the actions of the policemen unlawful.

In Aksenovskiy , the courts noted in addition the applicant ’ s two-year inaction prior to lodging the supervisory review complaint. In Aksenovskiy and Bereza , the courts noted that the failure to draw up an administrative escorting record did not therefore amount to a ground for compensation of damage. The courts found no evidence that Mr Bereza had been subject to administrative arrest.

For a summary of domestic law 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, §§ 47-85, 26 April 2016.

Section 8 of the Public Events Act of 2004 banned public gatherings in the immediate vicinity of court buildings. For a summary of the law and practice on public events in the immediate vicinity of courts at the material time, see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others , § 82, 10 April 2018. Relying on that provision of the Act, in 2011 the Syktyvkar town administration decided to ban the holding of public events within a radius of 150 metres of any court, to be measured from the entrance to each court building in the town. For a summary of the relevant Komi Republic legislation on public events since 2012, see Kablis v. Russia , nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, § 34, 30 April 2019.

By Ruling No. 33-P of 1 November 2019 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation declared unconstitutional section 5 § 1 of the Komi Republic Law no. 91-RZ of 29 November 2012 on the Holding of Public Events in the Komi Republic in so far as a general ban on holding of public events at Stefanovskaya Square (section 5 § 1) applied to any such events without taking consideration of whether a specific public event, given its type, purpose, planned number of participants and other relevant circumstances, might result in disruptions in the functioning of public utilities, transport, social or communications services and the obstruction of pedestrians or traffic or the hindering of citizens ’ access to residential buildings or transport and social services. As regards section 5 § 6 of the Law introducing a general ban on holding public events within a radius of fifty metres of the entrance to buildings occupied by the regional authorities of the Komi Republic, Komi Republic branches of the federal authorities, the municipal authorities of the Komi Republic, state institutions in the Komi Republic, the Constitutional Court declared it unconstitutional as by adopting that provision the republican legislator had overstepped the constitutional limits of the legislative powers of the subjects of the Russian Federation.

COMPLAINTS

All the ap plicants complain under Article 5 § 1 that there was no “reasonable suspicion” of them committin g an offence under Article 20.2 § 2 or § 5 of the CAO; in any event, the use of the procedure to escort them to the police station and the administrative arrest did not pursue any of the purposes listed under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and, moreover, neither the administrative escorting nor the arrest were recorded. They conclude that their arrests were “unlawful” and arbitrary under that provision.

They further complain that the refusal of compen sation violated Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.

The applicants further complain that by ending the applicants ’ solo demonstrations and taking them to the police station the authorities acted in breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and, in particular, that those authorities ’ actions did not have any basis in the domestic law.

They complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 10 and 11.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In each case, was there a violation of the applicants ’ rights under Article 5 of the Convention? Did the applicants ’ administrative escorting and administrative arrest f all within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (c), in particular as applied “for the purpose of bringing [the applicant] before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence”? Was the entire period complained of lawful and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? In particular, was the action properly recorded as “escorting to the police station”? Was it necessary for the relevant statutory purpose (the drawing up of an administrative-offence record because this could not be done on the spot) and reasonable as to its duration? Was the action properly recorded as “administrative arrest” ( административное задержание ) under Article 27.3 of the CAO? Were the statutory requirement of “exceptional circumstances” and the statutory purpose (the need for a proper and expedient examination of the administrative case) respected?

2. Assuming that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention has been violated as regards the applicants ’ deprivation of liberty, d id the applicants have an enforceable right to compens ation, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 5?

3. In view of the Court ’ s findings in the judgment of Novikova and Others (cited above ):

(a) Do the circumstances of each case (the termination of a solo demonstration, taking to the police station, detention there and prosecution under the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”), taken separately or cumulatively, disclose an “interference” und er Article 10 § 1 or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? Was such interference related to the time, place or manner of the expression or to its contents?

(b) Was this interference prescribed by law? In particular, what was the legal basis for the police order to terminate the demonstrations? As regards taking to police stations and detention there, why was it impracticable to draw up on the spot an administrative-offence record?

(c) Was the interference shown to pursue a legitimate aim?

(d) Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? Were the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the interference “relevant and sufficient”? Did the national authorities apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? Did the authorities base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts?

4. Did the applicants have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Details of the solo demonstration

Location

Date

Details of the applicants ’ escorting to the police station

Administrative charges

Penalty

Decision body

Final domestic decision discontinuing the administrative case

Court Name

Date

Judgments in the compensation proceedings

65507/14

23/09/2014

Svetlana Vladimirovna Uvarkina

1975Syktyvkar

1 July 2013

The applicant staged a solo demonstration in front of the prosecutor ’ s office ’ s building to protest against stray dogs mass poisoning in Syktyvkar in 2012 (in which a certain Mr R. was allegedly involved) and the authorities ’ inaction. She was holding a poster “[We] request to put R. ’ s case under special control of the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Komi Republic”.

Demonstration discontinued 50 minutes later, escorting and a total of three hours spent at the police station.

No administrative-escort record or administrative-arrest record was drawn up.

Article 20.2 § 5 CAO

Head of the Department of Interior of Syktyvkar

administrative offence record

13 August 2013 Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic

(first-instance judgment, final)

16/01/2014

(first instance)

10/04/2014

(upheld on appeal)

69758/14

07/10/2014

Andrey Vladimirovich Aksenovskiy

1948Syktyvkar

28/09/2011

As part of a series of solo demonstrations held in late 2011, at 9.30 a.m. the applicant placed himself two meters from a fenced-off area around the building housing the prosecutor ’ s office. He was holding a poster that read “The prosecutor ’ s office should return Stefanovskaya Square to demonstrators!”

Demonstration discontinued, escorting, no administrative-escort record or administrative-arrest record was drawn up.

Poster seized

Article 20.2§ 2

CAO

RUB 500, fine

(Justice of the Peace of the Katayevskiy Court Circuit of Syktyvkar)

24/07/2013 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

(quashing, by way of the supervisory-review procedure and on the applicant ’ s request, of the first-instance judgment of 13/12/2011)

14/01/2014

(first instance)

07/04/2014

(upheld on appeal)

2315/15*

07/10/2014

Elvira Viktorovna Bereza

1986Syktyvkar

12/06/2013

At 2.15 p.m. the applicant, a member of the local religious movement Pentecostal Church “ Bozhya Slava ” (“the Bozhya Slava ”) staged a solo demonstration at Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar, in the vicinity of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic, in order to attract attention to the allegedly unlawful seizure of property of a local center for rehabilitation of drug addicts. She was holding a poster calling on the Head of the Komi Republic “not to patronize raiders” from an anti-drug addiction organisation G. which had allegedly “seized the applicant ’ s living premises”

Demonstration discontinued 10 minutes later

Escorting and two hours spent at the police station

No administrative-escort record or administrative-arrest record was drawn up

Poster seized

Article 20.2 § 5 CAO

Head of the Department of Interior of Syktyvkar

administrative offence record

(solo demonstration within less than 150 m from the building of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic)

01/08/2013 Syktyvkar Town Court

(first-instance judgment, final)

14/01/2014

(first instance)

07/04/2014

(upheld on appeal)

2361/15*

05/11/2014

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Nitchenko

1984Syktyvkar

11/06/2013

At 3.30 p.m. the applicant, a pastor of “ Bozhya Slava ”, staged a solo demonstration on Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar, in the vicinity of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic, in order to attract attention to the allegedly unlawful seizure of property of a local center for rehabilitation of drug addicts. She was holding a poster calling on the Minister of the Interior of the Komi Republic “not to let the Ministry of Interior rob the Christians of the “ Bozhya Slava ” Church”

Demonstration discontinued 10 minutes later

Escorting to the police station (force used by the policemen), The applicant remained at the police station until 6.40 p.m

Poster seized

Article 20.2 § 5 CAO

Head of the Department of Interior of Syktyvkar

administrative offence record

(solo demonstration within less than 150 m from the building of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic)

02/09/2013 Syktyvkar Town Court

(first-instance judgment, final)

19/02/2014

(first instance)

05/05/2014

(upheld on appeal)