Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF SVINTSOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 25557/17 and 11 others â€“

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

1 June 2023

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

In the case of Svintsova and Others v. Russia,

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

Faris VehaboviÄ‡ , President , Armen Harutyunyan, Anja Seibert-Fohr , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 11 May 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, 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 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 â€‘ 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.

14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness 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 1 June 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 Â§Â§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Faris VehaboviÄ‡

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-established case-law

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

(in euros) [1]

25557/17

06/03/2017

Tatyana Fedorovna SVINTSOVA

1973Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich

Mytishchi

Meeting in support of

N. Savchenko

Moscow

08/03/2016

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

Administrative fine

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

08/09/2016

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

5,000

53179/17

13/07/2017

Vladimir Yuryevich DOROKHOV

1985Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

Administrative fine

RUB 10,000

Tula Regional Court

27/04/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 where the applicant was held from 3 to 8 p.m.

There is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 Â§ 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect.

4,000

54083/17

17/07/2017

and

8662/20

03/02/2020

Ilya Aleksandrovich YERMOLAYEV

1984Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Khabarovsk

26/03/2017

Rally for fair elections

Moscow

27/07/2019

Article 20.2 Â§ 1 of CAO

Administrative fine

RUB 10,000

Administrative fine

RUB 20,000

Khabarovsk Regional Court

23/05/2017

Moscow City Court

24/09/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention â€“

1) Escorting to the police station and administrative arrest on 26/03/2017 from 3 p.m. to 5.47 p.m.;

2) lack of legal grounds for escorting to the police station on 27/07/2019 from 3 to 6 p.m.;

There is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 Â§ 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect.

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

4,000

83271/17

03/12/2017

Mariya Aleksandrovna VOYEVODINA

1980Ratnikova Svetlana Sergeyevna

St Petersburg

Anticorruption rally

St Petersburg

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

Administrative fine

RUB 10,000

St Petersburg City Court

22/06/2017

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

5,000

83319/17

03/12/2017

Oleg Otariyevich KOIAVA

1978Ratnikova Svetlana Sergeyevna

St Petersburg

Anticorruption rally

St Petersburg

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

Administrative fine

RUB 10,000

St Petersburg City Court

06/07/2017

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

5,000

83941/17

08/12/2017

Nikita Igorevich ROLIN

1998Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Moscow

26/03/2017

Article 19.3 Â§ 1 of CAO

Administrative fine

RUB 1,000

Moscow City Court

08/06/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station and administrative arrest from

5.30 p.m. on 26/03/2017 until 2.20 a.m.

on 27/03/2017; detention in excess of 3 hours;

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

4,000

2702/18

16/12/2017

Amir Ramilevich VYALSHIN

1997Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich

Mytishchi

Anticorruption rally

Moscow

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

Administrative fine

RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

12/07/2017

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

5,000

6378/18

16/12/2017

and

13966/20

28/02/2020

Stanislav Olegovich BELYANSKIY

1965Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Moscow

12/06/2017

Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

14/07/2019

Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma

Moscow

27/07/2019

Rally in support of the accused in "Set" and "Novoye Velichiye" cases

Moscow

13/05/2019

Article 19.3 Â§ 1 of CAO

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

Administrative detention of ten days

Administrative fine of

RUB 10,000

Administrative fine of

RUB 15,000

Administrative fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

19/06/2017

Moscow City Court

14/07/2020

Moscow City Court

18/09/2019

Moscow City Court

30/08/2019

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;

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The applicant complained of his detention on 13-14/05/2019, 14 â€‘ 15/07/2019, and 27-29/07/2019; there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 Â§ 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect.

6,000

9691/18

09/02/2018

Konstantin Vladimirovich FILIPPOV

1986Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich

Mytishchi

Anti-governmental rally

Moscow

02/04/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 6.1 of CAO

Administrative fine

RUB 20,000

Moscow City 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;

5,000

9848/18

12/02/2018

Filipp Vladimirovich KHODANOV

1995Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich

Mytishchi

Anticorruption rally

Moscow

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

Administrative fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

14/08/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Escorting to a police station and administrative arrest from 1.45 p.m. on 26/03/2017 to 7 a.m. on 27/03/2017; detention in excess of three hours;

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

5,000

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

Menu

CASE OF SVINTSOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF SVINTSOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI