Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF TIKHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 29316/13 and 14 others â€“

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 July 2023

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

In the case of Tikhenko and Others v. Russia,

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

LÉ™tif HÃ¼seynov , President , Ivana JeliÄ‡, Erik WennerstrÃ¶m , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 June 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 (â€œthe Conventionâ€) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (â€œthe 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. 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, Â§Â§ 68 â€‘ 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 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, 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. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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 these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in 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§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, Â§Â§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, and Teslenko and Others v. Russia , nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, Â§Â§ 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, Â§Â§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the CAO; Korneyeva , cited above, Â§Â§ 62-65 as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.

14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under various Articles of the Convention concerning other aspects of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case â€‘ law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, Â§ 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicantsâ€™ 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 20 July 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 Â§Â§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina LÉ™tif HÃ¼seynov

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

Representativeâ€™s name and location

Name of the public event

Location

Date

Administrative charges

Penalty

Final domestic decision

Court Name

Date

Other complaints under well â€‘ established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non â€‘ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

29316/13

02/04/2013

Galina Fedorovna TIKHENKO

1947Vorobyev

Viktor Viktorovich

Syktyvkar

Independence Day commemoration

Volgograd

12/06/2012

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

reprimand

Volzhskiy Town Court of the Volgograd Region

05/10/2012

3,500,

in non-pecuniary damage,

and

250,

in costs and expenses to be paid directly to the lawyer, Mr V. Vorobyev

70450/17

07/09/2017

Aleksandr Nikolayevich NEZNANOV

1982Terekhov

Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption protest

Tambov

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Tambov Regional Court

15/05/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 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,

in non-pecuniary damage,

and

250,

in costs and expenses to be paid directly to the lawyer, Mr K. Terekhov

79288/17

09/11/2017

Vladimir Vladimirovich ZHILKIN

1974Terekhov

Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption protest

Tambov

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 2 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Tambov Regional Court

15/05/2017

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

3,500,

in non-pecuniary damage,

and

250,

in costs and expenses to be paid directly to the lawyer, Mr K. Terekhov

79906/17

07/11/2017

Aleksandr Sergeyevich MIRONOV

1979Zboroshenko

Nikolay Sergeyevich

Mytishchi

Immortal regiment rally

Moscow

09/05/2017

Article 19.3 Â§ 1 of CAO,

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

detention for 7 days;

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

08/10/2017 (two decisions of the same day)

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.10 p.m. on 09/05/2017 until 9.40 a.m. on 10/05/2017,

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

Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - Art. 19.3 Â§ 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 Â§ 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicantâ€™s prosecution and punishment in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings

5,000,

in non-pecuniary damage,

and

250,

in costs and expenses to be paid directly to the lawyer, Mr N. Zhoroshenko

80338/17

10/11/2017

Vyacheslav Borisovich RYBAKOV

1966Glukhov

Aleksey Vladimirovich

Novocheboksarsk

Anti-corruption rally

Cheboksary

26/03/2017

Article 19.3 Â§ 1 of CAO,

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 1,000;

30 days of community work

Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia

15/08/2017 (two decisions of the same date)

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

3,500

80340/17

10/11/2017

Yuriy Borisovich SIDOROV

1987Glukhov

Aleksey Vladimirovich

Novocheboksarsk

Anti-corruption rally

Cheboksary

26/03/2017

Article 19.3 Â§ 1 of CAO,

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 1,000;

32 days of community work

Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia

31/08/2017 (two decisions of the same date)

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

3,500

80358/17

10/11/2017

Dmitriy Martin ROBSON

1997Glukhov

Aleksey Vladimirovich

Novocheboksarsk

Anti-corruption rally

Cheboksary

26/03/2017

Article 19.3 Â§ 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 500

Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia

11/05/2017

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

3,500

80374/17

10/11/2017

Roman Mikhaylovich ROMANOV

1998Glukhov

Aleksey Vladimirovich

Novocheboksarsk

Anti-corruption rally

Cheboksary

26/03/2017

Article 19.3 Â§ 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 500

Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia

12/05/2017

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

3,500

80378/17

10/11/2017

Konstantin Aleksandrovich ISHUTOV

1983Glukhov

Aleksey Vladimirovich

Novocheboksarsk

Anti-corruption rally

Cheboksary

26/03/2017

Article 19.3 Â§ 1 of CAO,

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 500,

fine of RUB 20,000

Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia

21/09/2017 (two decisions of the same date)

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

3,500

2940/18

25/12/2017

AND

5701/18

17/01/2018

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich YELFIMOV

1995Terekhov

Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption protest

Vladivostok

26/03/2017

Anti-corruption protest

Vladivostok

12/06/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Primorye Regional Court

28/06/2017

Primorye Regional Court

09/08/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for compiling an offence report,

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

4,000

4841/18

17/01/2018

Andrey Alekseyevich YAROTSKOY

1991Terekhov

Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Day of the City march

Vladivostok

01/07/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Primorye Regional Court

10/08/2017

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

3,500,

in non-pecuniary damage,

and

250,

in costs and expenses to be paid directly to the lawyer, Mr K. Terekhov

5270/18

17/01/2018

Dmitriy Yevgenyevich RODIN

1979Terekhov

Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Rally for maintaining the trolleybus network

Moscow

29/01/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

14/07/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 29/01/2017 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

5340/18

08/01/2018

Vladimir Romanovich YAROSLAVSKIY

1993Terekhov

Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption protest

Vladivostok

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Primorye Regional 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

11453/18

15/02/2018

Roman Yuryevich GURYANOV

1999Banik

Sergey Stepanovich

Vladivostok

Anti-corruption protest

Vladivostok

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 5,000

Primorye Regional Court

19/08/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 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,

in non-pecuniary damage,

and

250,

in costs and expenses to be paid directly to the lawyer, Mr S. Banik

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

Menu

CASE OF TIKHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF TIKHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI