SECOND SECTION

CASE OF BELONOGIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 5106/18 and 19 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 May 2023

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

In the case of Belonogiy 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 13 April 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 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 participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. Some applicants also invoked Article 10; however, these complaints fall to be examined under Article 11 of the Convention.

8. 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).

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 § 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”.

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 § 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 its case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121 ‑ 23, 10 April 2018, Kalyapin v. Russia , no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events; Teslenko and Others v. Russia , nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 72-74 and 81-82, 5 April 2022, concerning in particular administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences; 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); Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-215, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures against solo-demonstrators; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 74-90, 30 April 2019, concerning conviction for an administrative offence for calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event; Tsvetkova and Others , cited above, §§ 179 ‑ 91, and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, concerning lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO).

13. Having regard to its findings above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings in their cases.

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.”

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ 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 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 11 May 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

Charges under CAO

Penalty

Final domestic decision

Court Name

Date

Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (in euros) [1]

5106/18

18/01/2018

and

18722/20

30/03/2020

Denis Aleksandrovich BELONOGIY

1990Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Melburn

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Anti-corruption manifestation

Moscow

26/03/2017

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Manifestation in support to A. Navalnyy

Moscow

23/01/2021

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

fine of RUB 20,000

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

26/07/2017

Moscow City Court

16/12/2019

Moscow City Court

03/08/2021

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty:

1) escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.30 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. on 26/03/2017,

2) escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, while it was not explained why the said protocol could not have been drawn on the spot:

- from 3.10 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019,

- from 3.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to an unspecified time;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court, 26/07/2017, 16/12/2019 and 03/08/2021

5,000

10666/19

11/02/2019

Mikhail Vladimirovich SVETOV

1985Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Manifestation against the pension reform

St Petersburg

09/09/2018

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

16/07/2019

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO

administrative detention of 10 days

administrative detention of 30 days

St Petersburg City Court

12/09/2018

Moscow City Court

02/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant remained in detention even after the record of administrative offence had been drawn up:

1) from 09/09/2018 to 10/09/2018,

2) from 30/07/2019 to 31/07/2019,

3) from 24/04/2021 to 26/04/2021

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: 12/09/2018, 02/08/2019 and 30/04/2021, by the St Petersburg City Court, Moscow City Court;

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal: the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (two counts: in 2019 and 2021);

Art. 10 (1) - conviction for an administrative offence for calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event; final decision: Moscow City Court, 30/04/2021

6,000

57/20

18/12/2019

Tigran Arturovich MOVSESYAN

1996Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

04/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.20 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.29 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 – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/09/2019

4,000

1829/20

27/12/2019

Artem Aleksandrovich SOLOMIN

2001Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

10/08/2019

Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy

Moscow

31/01/2021

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

04/10/2019

Moscow City Court

19/08/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”:

1) from 6.35 p.m. on 10/08/2019 to 00.25 a.m. on 11/08/2019, the time indicated in the record of the applicant’s escorting was at variance with the real time of his deprivation of liberty, while no record of the administrative arrest was drawn up,

2) from 2.40 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court

04/10/2019 and 19/08/2021

4,000

9499/20

12/02/2020

Sofya Vladimirovna MUSTETSOVA

1999Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow,

03/08/2019

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

administrative detention of 10 days

Moscow City Court

12/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant spent 3 hours in a police van before having been brought to the police station, from 5.15 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 9.40 p.m. on 05/08/2019 when the applicant’s trial started;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/08/2019

5,000

10628/20

17/02/2020

Dmitriy Vitalyevich TROYANOVSKIY

1987Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

04/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.30 p.m. to 10.00 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 – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/10/2019

4,000

10844/20

05/02/2020

Nikolay Aleksandrovich DEMENTYEV

1994Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/3019

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

administrative detention of 15 days

Moscow City Court

13/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 7.00 p.m. on 05/08/2019 when the applicant’s trial started;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 13/08/2019

5,000

11044/20

07/02/2020

Anton Aleksandrovich FROLOV

1990Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

30/09/2019

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

Moscow City Court, 30/09/2019

3,500

11062/20

07/02/2020

Arseniy Sergeyevich KULIKOV

1996Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

24/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.25 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 00.30 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the time indicated in the record of the applicant’s escorting was at variance with the real time of his deprivation of liberty (raised on appeal);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019

4,000

11084/20

07/02/2020

Aleksey Aleksandrovich IVLEV

1990Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

04/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 5.50 p.m. to 8.10 p.m. on 03/08/2019, it was not explained why the record of administrative offence could not have been drawn on the spot;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/09/2019

3,500

11578/20

07/02/2020

Ivan Aleksandrovich OSTAPCHUK

1993Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

14/11/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.55 p.m. to 11.50 p.m. on 03/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019;

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

Moscow City Court, 14/11/2019

4,000

12211/20

27/02/2020

Roman Valeryevich VORONIN

1987Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

06/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.40 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.40 a.m. on 04/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/09/2019

4,000

12435/20

22/02/2020

Aleksey Aleksandrovich FEDOSIMOV

1984Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich

Novocheboksarsk

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

26/08/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 4.50 p.m. to an unspecified time on 03/08/2019, it was not explained why the record of administrative offence could not have been drawn on the spot;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/08/2019

3,500

19565/20

23/03/2020

Andrey Vladimirovich KASHURIN

1990Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

22/10/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.40 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019; the applicant spent more than 3 hours in the police van before having been brought to the police station;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 22/10/2019

4,000

19609/20

25/03/2020

Kirill Alekseyevich LIPATOV

1990Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

02/12/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 00.30 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 – final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/12/2019

4,000

19610/20

16/03/2020

Boris Mikhaylovich STARKOV

2000Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

18/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.30 p.m. to 8.00 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 – final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/09/2019

4,000

25986/20

14/04/2020

Andrey Sergeyevich KAZHANOV

1985Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

06/12/2019

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 6.10 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to an unspecified time;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/12/2019

4,000

26632/20

05/06/2020

Yevgeniy Erlenovich BOLSHAKOV

1968Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Manifestation against the war in Ukraine

Moscow

13/03/2022

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

14/11/2019

Moscow City Court

05/08/2022

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”,

- from 6.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to an unspecified time,

- from 1.05 p.m. to 9.48 p.m. on 13/03/2022;

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court, 05/08/2022 and 14/11/2019

4,000

33795/20

31/07/2020

Aleksandr Viktorovich TOKMAKOV

1998Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

03/08/2019

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

12/03/2020

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 02.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019;

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

Moscow City Court, 12/03/2020

4,000

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