SECOND SECTION

CASE OF KOMPLINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 14256/20 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 Komplinov 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 Derenčinović , 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 Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) 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 participants of public assemblies. They 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 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 Kudrevičius 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 and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 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 applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.

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

11. 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 § 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 Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018; Kalyapin v. Russia , no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019; and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, concerning different aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events; 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); and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 178-91, 10 April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal and immediate execution of a sentence of administrative detention).

12. Some applicants further raised additional complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their detention and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

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.”

14. 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 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 and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

14256/20

22/01/2020

Sergey Aleksandrovich KOMPLINOV

1984Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich

Mytishchi

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

22/08/2019

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 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,

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 22/08/2019

4,000

14309/20

22/01/2020

Yan Yuryevich CHERNYAVSKIY

1994Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich

Mytishchi

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

30/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,

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 30/09/2019

4,000

27644/20

25/06/2020

Aleksandr Vladimirovich PLATITSYN

2001Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

28/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence: no evidence / assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO,

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 28/10/2019

4,000

27996/20

10/06/2020

Andrey Vyacheslavovich SKOROKHOD

1970Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

18/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of compiling the administrative offence record, in the absence of “exceptional circumstances”, beyond the statutory period of 3 hours (the administrative offence record compiled on 29/07/2019),

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 18/11/2019

4,000

28009/20

10/06/2020

Dmitriy Anatolyevich MINDICH

1976Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich

Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

26/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of compiling the administrative offence record, in the absence of “exceptional circumstances”, beyond the statutory period of 3 hours (the administrative offence record compiled on 29/07/2019),

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 26/09/2019

4,000

28017/20

10/06/2020

Mikhail Olegovich DEREVYANNYKH

2000Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich

Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

18/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, in the absence of any “exceptional circumstances” (administrative offence record compiled on 30/07/2019)

4,000

28320/20

03/07/2020

Modest Vladimirovich OSIPOV

1977Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

06/12/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect; no evidence/ assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period (the administrative offence record compiled on 27/07/2019),

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 06/12/2019

4,000

28323/20

03/07/2020

Vladimir Olegovich GONIKHIN

1988Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

08/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station and detention on 27/07/2019 as administrative suspect: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO (administrative offence record compiled on 01/08/2019),

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 08/11/2019

4,000

28329/20

03/07/2020

Ibragim Ibragimovich ASHURBEKOV

1990Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

26/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station and detention on 27/07/2019 as administrative suspect: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO,

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 26/11/2019

4,000

28332/20

03/07/2020

Aleksey Vasilyevich CHUMAKOV

1969Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

18/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention in excess of 3 hours on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest: no evidence / assessment of any “exceptional circumstances” (administrative offence record compiled on 02/08/2019),

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 18/11/2019

4,000

28522/20

03/07/2020

Sergey Ilyich SHEVKOV

1988Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

12/12/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station and detention on 27/07/2019 as administrative suspect: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO (administrative offence record compiled on 31/07/2019),

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 12/12/2019

4,000

28568/20

09/06/2020

Anna Nikolayevna BOYNOVA

1993Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

14/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 (two administrative arrest records of 27/07 and 28/07/2019) as administrative suspect “for examination [of the case]”: no evidence/ assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under the CAO, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 27/07/2019,

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 14/10/2019

4,000

28569/20

09/06/2020

Anastasiya Sergeyevna POPOVICH

1992Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

12/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect “for examination [of the case]”: no evidence /assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under the CAO, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 27/07/2019,

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 12/11/2019

4,000

28601/20

03/07/2020

Anton Sergeyevich MOLODIK

1966Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

04/02/2020

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station and detention on 27/07/2019 as administrative suspect: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO (the administrative offence record compiled on 29/07/2019),

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 04/02/2020

4,000

28605/20

03/07/2020

Vladimir Yevgenyevich GURYEV

1969Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

22/01/2020

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- arrest and escorting to the police station and detention on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO,

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 22/01/2020

4,000

28638/20

03/07/2020

Viktor Valeryevich SALIKOV

1976Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

08/10/2019

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 08/10/2019

3,500

28656/20

03/07/2020

Vladislav Vladimirovich SHERYSHEV

1980Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

30/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO,

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceeding – final decision: Moscow City Court on 30/10/2019

4,000

29085/20

18/06/2020

Stepan Alekseyevich SKLYANKIN

1999Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

10/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 (two consecutive administrative arrest records of 27/07 and 28/07/2019) as administrative suspect: no evidence/ assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under the CAO, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period (the administrative offence record compiled on 29/07/2019);

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 10/10/2019

4,000

29517/20

13/07/2020

Aleksandr Nikolayevich SAUKHIN

1986Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

28/01/2020

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO,

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 28/01/2020

4,000

29538/20

15/07/2020

Nadezhda Petrovna GUZHEVA

1974Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

24/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO,

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 24/10/2019

4,000

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