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 MAKLASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 70005/17, 80792/17, 82703/17, 84265/17, 2567/18, 5012/18, 5038/18, 5283/18, 5324/18, 5343/18, 11525/... • ECHR ID: 001-223713
Document date: March 30, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
CASE OF MAKLASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 70005/17, 80792/17, 82703/17, 84265/17, 2567/18, 5012/18, 5038/18, 5283/18, 5324/18, 5343/18, 11525/... • ECHR ID: 001-223713
Document date: March 30, 2023
Cited paragraphs only
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MAKLASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 70005/17 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Maklashin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland , President , Frédéric Krenc, Davor DerenÄinović , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 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 and/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 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 offence. 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 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).
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 case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion in application nos. 80792/17, 2567/18, 5283/18, 5324/18 and 5343/18, 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€.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
11. 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 well ‑ established case-law (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful administrative arrest, and Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)).
12. In view of its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by some of the applicants in relation to other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings.
13. 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€
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 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 30 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
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 per applicant
(in euros) [1]
70005/17
07/09/2017
Boris Sergeyevich MAKLASHIN
1997Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fines of RUB 500 and RUB 10,000, respectively
St Petersburg City Court
13/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasoned arrest and detention on 12/06/2017; detention in excess of 3 hours; issue raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court on 13/07/2017
4,000
80792/17
16/11/2017
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ZHEBREV
1982Glukhov
Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Anti-corruption manifestation
Nizhniy Novgorod
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
17/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrested on 26/03/2017, at 4.10 p.m., brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence, released on the same day at 8 p.m.; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 17/05/2017
4,000
82703/17
24/11/2017
Yelena
Yuryevna SHARAPOVA
1986Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Anti-corruption assembly
Moscow, Pushkinskaya square / Tverskaya street
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow
City Court
16/06/2017
3,500
84265/17
14/12/2017
Igor Aleksandrovich KARKLIN
1990Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Privokzalnaya Square near the Lenin monument, Vladivostok
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
14/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Primorye Regional Court on 14/06/2017
3,500
2567/18
08/12/2017
Andrey Vladimirovich MINEYEV
1990Glukhov
Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Anti-corruption manifestation
Nizhniy Novgorod
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
15/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; issue examined by the appeal court,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15/06/2017
4,000
5012/18
08/01/2018
Garegin Robertovich ARAKELYAN
1994Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow
City Court
20/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasoned arrest on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court
on 20/07/2017
4,000
5038/18
08/01/2018
Nadezhda Leonidovna LOZINA
1961Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow
City Court
12/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasoned arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal
4,000
5283/18
17/01/2018
Anastasiya Borisovna GRYZUNOVA
1976Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow
City Court
02/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; issue examined by the appeal court,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 02/08/2017
4,000
5324/18
08/01/2018
Vilen Vladimirovich SHEVCHENKO
1975Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow
City Court
16/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Unreasonable arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 16/08/2017
4,000
5343/18
08/01/2018
Ilya
Yuryevich BARABANOV
1993Terekhov Konstantin
Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow
City Court
24/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasonable arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 24/07/2017
4,000
11525/18
17/02/2018
Stanislav Sergeyevich SHISHKIN
1972Anti-corruption manifestation
Kaliningrad
12/06/2017
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy’s presidential campaign
Kaliningrad
07/10/2017
Article 20.2
§ 5 of CAO
Article 20.2
§ 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
50 hours of community work
Kaliningrad Regional Court
17/08/2017
Kaliningrad Regional Court
25/01/2018
4,000
12445/18
03/03/2018
Dmitriy Viktorovich KARPENKO
1970Kholodtsova
Inna
Vadimovna
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2
§ 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow
City Court
06/09/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest at the place of manifestation; lengthy detention in a van; then detention in a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 06/09/2017
4,000
23661/18
04/05/2018
Dmitriy Anatolyevich MILLER
1982Benyash
Mikhail Mikhaylovich
Sochi
Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy
Krasnaya / Lenin str, Krasnodar
07/10/2017
Article 20.2
§ 5 of CAO
35 hours of compulsory work
Krasnodar Regional Court
15/11/2017
3,500
24447/18
10/05/2018
Stanislav Anatolyevich RAKITIN
1984Yatsenko
Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Anti-government manifestation
Manezhnaya square, Moscow
05/11/2017
Article 19.3
§ 1 of CAO
14 days of administrative detention
Moscow
City Court
10/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 10/11/2017
5,000
24744/18
08/05/2018
Daniil Sergeyevich SKORBILIN
1995Yatsenko
Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Anti-government manifestation
Pushkinskaya square, Moscow
05/11/2017
Article 19.3
§ 1 of CAO
14 days of administrative detention
Moscow
City Court
08/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 08/11/2017
5,000
28308/18
04/06/2018
Vladislav Aleksandrovich NOVIK
1996Kholodtsova
Inna
Vadimovna
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2
§ 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow
City Court
19/01/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unlawful arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 19/01/2018
4,000
28687/18
04/06/2018
Kseniya Olegovna CHURILOVA
1992Yelanchik
Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
12/06/2017
Article 20.2
§ 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow
City Court
04/12/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 12/06/2017. The police officers failed to draw up a record of the applicant’s arrest and detained her for about 3 hours in a police van and another 3 hours at a police station. The total time of her detention exceeded 6 hours; raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 04/12/2017
4,000
57050/18
24/11/2018
Tatyana Stepanovna PRISHANOVA
1950Romanov
Pavel
Valeryevich
Cheboksary
Opposition manifestation
Smolensk
05/05/2018
Article 20.2
§ 8 of CAO
60 hours of compulsory work
Smolensk Regional Court
22/08/2018
3,500
57352/18
16/11/2018
Mariya Andreyevna RABINOVICH
1993Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich
Tbilisi, Georgia
Political manifestation
Irkutsk
05/05/2018
Article 20.2
§ 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Irkutsk Regional Court
18/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court on 18/07/2018
3,500
58067/18
13/11/2018
Sergey Dmitriyevich VETLUZHSKIKH
1998Sholokhov
Igor
Nikolayevich
Kazan
Opposition manifestation
Kazan
05/05/2018
Article 20.2
§ 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Supreme Court of Tatarstan
04/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 04/07/2018
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
