Lexploria

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF DMITRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 30607/18 and 19 others â€“

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 March 2023

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

In the case of Dmitriyeva and Others v. Russia,

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

Lorraine Schembri Orland , President , FrÃ©dÃ©ric Krenc, Davor DerenÄinoviÄ‡ , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 March 2022,

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 (â€œthe Conventionâ€) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The applicants were represented by the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation practicing in Moscow.

3. The Russian Government (â€œthe Governmentâ€) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies in Moscow. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as 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.

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 â€‘ 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 and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 Â§ 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, Â§Â§ 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 applicantsâ€™ freedom of assembly were not â€œnecessary in a democratic societyâ€.

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

12. 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 Â§ 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.

13. 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 its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, Â§Â§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, Â§Â§ 121-23, 10 April 2018, Kalyapin v. Russia , no. 6095/09, Â§ 76, 23 July 2019, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, Â§Â§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public events, and 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)).

14. Some applicants raised additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative â€‘ offence proceedings. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.

15. The applicants in applications nos. 1767/20 and 7972/20 also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 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, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 Â§ 4 of the Convention.

16. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

â€œIf 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€

17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case â€‘ law (see Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, 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 30 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 Â§Â§ 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

Applicantâ€™s name

Year of birth

Name of the public event

Date

Administrative charges

Penalty

Final domestic decision

Moscow City Court

Date

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

(in euros) [1]

30607/18

18/06/2018

Polina Igorevna DMITRIYEVA

2000Opposition rally

12/06/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

18/12/2017

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 4.40 p.m.

to 9.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 18/12/2017

4,000

64940/19

18/12/2019

Matvey Olegovich SAMOYLYUK

1999Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of

RUB 15,000

12/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 7.40 p.m.

on 27/07/2019 to 7.30 p.m. On 29/07/2019; the applicant spent more than 3 hours in a police van;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 12/09/2019.

5,000

65296/19

18/12/2019

Stanislav Yevgenyevich YANKOVSKIY

1988Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 15,000

30/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 4.10 p.m.

to 11.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 30/08/2019.

4,000

1767/20

27/12/2019

Pavel Mikhaylovich SMIRNOV

1995Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

03/08/2019

Article 19.3 Â§ 1 of CAO

administrative arrest of

15 days

12/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 5.00 p.m.

on 03/08/2019 to 8.00 p.m. on 05/08/2019 the applicant remained in detention until the hearings on 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 â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 12/08/2019

5,000

7767/20

29/01/2020

Kirill Vladimirovich SHLEPNEV

1994Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

30/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 3.25 p.m.

to 8.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 30/08/2019.

4,000

7880/20

28/01/2020

Kirill Maksimovich KORINETS

1998Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 6 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

16/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 7.40 p.m.

on 27/07/2019 to 6.00 p.m. on 29/07/201; the applicant remained in detention until the hearings on 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 â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 16/08/2019.

5,000

7893/20

29/01/2020

Nikolay Andreyevich PETYAYEV

1978Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 6 of CAO

fine of

RUB 20,000

20/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 8.30 p.m.

on 27/07/2019 to 1.50 p.m. on 29/07/2019 the applicant remained in detention even after the administrative record had been drawn up;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 20/08/2019.

5,000

7972/20

23/01/2020

Ilya Vladimirovich KIM

1993Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 6 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

14/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 8.00 p.m.

on 27/07/2019 to 6.30 p.m. on 29/07/2019 the applicant remained in detention even after the administrative record had been drawn up;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 14/11/2019.

4,000

8316/20

31/01/2020

Aleksandr Vasilyevich MITRYAYKIN

1989Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of

RUB 15,000

14/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 9.00 p.m.

on 27/07/2019 to 8.00 p.m. on 29/07/201; the applicant remained in detention even after the administrative record had been drawn up, until the hearings on 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 â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 14/10/2019.

5,000

10153/20

13/02/2020

Aleksey Nikolayevich BALASHOV

1973Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 15,000

14/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 4.05 p.m.

on 03/08/2019 to 2.10 a.m. on 04/08/2019;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 14/10/2019.

4,000

17984/20

23/03/2020

Vladimir Dmitriyevich ZINOVYEV

1999Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

04/10/2020

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 9.30 p.m.

on 27/07/2019 to 5.00 p.m. on 29/07/2019 the applicant remained in detention even after the administrative record had been drawn up, until the hearings on 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 â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 04/10/2020.

5,000

17985/20

23/03/2020

Aleksey Igorevich ZEMKOV

1992Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

08/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, detention

from 2.30 p.m. to 3.40 p.m. on 27/07/2019;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019.

3,500

17997/20

23/03/2020

Maksim Semenovich DOLINSKIY

1993Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 15,000

20/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 6.00 p.m.

to 9.40 p.m. on 27/07/2019 the applicant remained in detention; the applicant remained for more than three hours in the police van;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 20/09/2019.

4,000

18003/20

23/03/2020

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich MUSAFIROV

1996Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

16/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 12.15 p.m.

to 4.15 p.m. on 27/07/2019;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 16/10/2019.

4,000

18004/20

23/03/2020

Sergey Petrovich MOMOTYUK

1989Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

20/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 2.10 p.m.

to 7.00 p.m. on 27/07/2019;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 20/09/2019.

4,000

18011/20

23/03/2020

Mikhail Vitalyevich KURGIN

1983Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 15,000

10/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 2.50 p.m. to

11.00 p.m. on 27/07/2019 the applicant remained for more than

7 hours in a police van;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 10/10/2019.

4,000

18086/20

11/03/2020

Timofey Anatolyevich SHATROV

1985Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

30/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 2.55 p.m. to

6.40 p.m. on 27/07/2019 while the administrative record was drawn up only on 30/07/2019;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 30/09/2019.

4,000

18102/20

11/03/2020

Vladimir Sergeyevich BATASOV

2000Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 15,000

12/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 2.20 p.m. to midnight on 27/07/2019; while the said protocol was drawn up only on 31/07/2019.

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 12/09/2019

4,000

31854/20

08/07/2020

Nikita Sabokhidinovich IVANKOV

1994Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

08/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 12.30 p.m. to

8.00 p.m. on 27/07/2019;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019.

4,000

39067/20

14/08/2020

Ivan Vyacheslavovich KASYANENKO

1999Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 10,000

14/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without â€œexceptional circumstancesâ€, from 6.30 p.m.

on 27/07/2019 to 03.30 a.m. on 28/07/2019; while the administrative record was drawn up only

on 30/07/2019;

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

proceedings â€“ final decision:

Moscow City Court, 14/11/2019.

4,000

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

Menu

CASE OF DMITRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF DMITRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI