LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF DANILCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 3652/18, 3675/18, 3679/18, 4035/18, 4060/18, 5253/18, 7239/18, 10057/18, 11600/18, 13022/18, 13243/1... • ECHR ID: 001-224259
Document date: April 20, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
CASE OF DANILCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 3652/18, 3675/18, 3679/18, 4035/18, 4060/18, 5253/18, 7239/18, 10057/18, 11600/18, 13022/18, 13243/1... • ECHR ID: 001-224259
Document date: April 20, 2023
Cited paragraphs only
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF DANILCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 3652/18 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Danilchenko and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
MarÃa Elósegui , President , Mattias Guyomar, KateÅ™ina Å imáÄková , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 March 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 Conventionâ€) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Governmentâ€) 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 or participants of public assemblies. Some 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 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).
7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants 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 KudreviÄius 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, 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 societyâ€.
11 . These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
12 . Some 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. 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 lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO; and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7 February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events.
13. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, there is no need to examine other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.
14. 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.â€
15. 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,
(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 20 April 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina MarÃa Elósegui
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]
3652/18
08/01/2018
Yevgeniy Anatolyevich DANILCHENKO
1980Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
28/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
3675/18
08/01/2018
Anastasia Lvovna AKOLZINA
1997Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
20/07/2017
3,500
3679/18
08/01/2018
Olga Vladimirovna LOZINA
1989Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/07/2017
3,500
4035/18
08/01/2018
Vladislav Arturovich AKOLZIN
1993Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
20/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
4060/18
08/01/2018
Stanislav Mikhailovich CHINDIN
1997Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
28/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26 ‑ 27/03/2017 detention in a police station for compiling an offence report
4,000
5253/18
17/01/2018
Aleksey Vladislavovich IVANOV
1979Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
18/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
7239/18
22/01/2018
Artur Vagifovich BALAKISHEV
1996Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Kaliningrad
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
17/08/2017
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
10057/18
08/02/2018
Ivan Pavlovich DEMIN
1972Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
08/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
11600/18
16/02/2018
Anton Aleksandrovich BYKOV
1987Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
16/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
13022/18
22/02/2018
Ilya Igorevich TITOV
1994Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
24/08/2017
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
13243/18
15/02/2018
Kirill Olegovich NORINSKIY
1999Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
15/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
14455/18
13/03/2018
Igor Vladimirovich NELOGOV
1985Makarova Yelena Anatolyevna
Yekaterinburg
Opposition rally
Yekaterinburg
23/07/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
01/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
15809/18
19/03/2018
Viktor Nikolayevich KASYANOV
1986Dobralskiy Aleksandr Igorevich
Kaliningrad
Anticorruption rally
Kaliningrad
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
14/09/2017
(received on 09/10/2017)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
15811/18
19/03/2018
Aleksandr Sergeyevich KAZANOVSKIY
1990Dobralskiy Aleksandr Igorevich
Kaliningrad
Anticorruption rally
Kaliningrad
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
07/09/2017
(received on 02/11/2017)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
15812/18
19/03/2018
Aleksandr Sergeyevich DUVANOV
1994Dobralskiy Aleksandr Igorevich
Kaliningrad
Anticorruption rally
Kaliningrad
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
14/09/2017 (received on 20/09/2017)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
19761/18
11/04/2018
Yuriy Aleksandrovich BELSKIY
1985Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/10/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report
4,000
23417/18
05/05/2018
Aleksandr Valeryevich KHIMICH
1996Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich
Sochi
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Krasnodar
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
13/11/2017
3,500
23880/18
04/05/2018
Vitaliy Mikhaylovich MOLODANOV
1973Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich
Sochi
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Krasnodar
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
06/12/2017
3,500
36242/18
19/07/2018
Artur Dmitriyevich BELYAKOV
1999Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Chelyabinsk
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
19/01/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - concerning the rally on 07/10/2017,
Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - Chelyabinsk town administration refused to give official approval for another rally planned for 08/10/2017 (final decision on 05/09/2018, Supreme Court of Russia)
3,500
44205/18
07/09/2018
Marina Samuyelovna DEDALES
1989Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
LGBT-rights event
Moscow
11/05/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
16/07/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 11/05/2017 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
