FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 711/18 and 9 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

23 November 2023

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

In the case of Popov and Others v. Russia,

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

Branko Lubarda , President , Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto.

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 the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

8. In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.

9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

10. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and Protocols thereto, 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.

11. 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, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019, related to the right not be tried or punished twice in the criminal proceedings).

12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative- offence proceedings.

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, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers 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 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth/registration

Representative’s name and location

Penalty

Date of final domestic decision

Name of court

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]

711/18

08/12/2017

Sergey Vladimirovich POPOV

1971Aleksandr Dmitriyevich

Peredruk

St Petersburg

administrative detention of 5 days

administrative fine of RUB 10,000

16/06/2017,

St Petersburg City Court

21/06/2017,

St Petersburg City Court,

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 12 ‑ 14/06/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;

Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - convicted twice for participation in one and the same public event on 12/06/2017 – final decisions convicting the applicant: St Petersburg City Court on 16/06/2017 and then on 21/06/2017

3,900

22829/18

08/05/2018

Vasiliy Yuryevich ZHIRKEVICH

1956Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

administrative fine of RUB 10,000

30/03/2018,

Moscow City Court

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention for more than 3 hours on 12/06/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence

3,900

12299/19

23/01/2019

Fedor Vladimirovich YARUNICHEV

1972Yevgeniy Valeryevich

Kulakov

Arkhangelsk

administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 9 months

26/12/2018, Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk

1,000

52429/19

27/09/2019

OOO SK IVIKON

2005Artem Vyacheslavovich

Syntin

Omsk

administrative fine of RUB 100,000

administrative fine of RUB 200,000

12/04/2019, Kirovskiy District Court of Omsk

30/04/2019,

Omskiy District Court of the Omsk Region

4,000

59586/19

05/11/2019

Boris Pavlovich USHAKOV

1983Natalya Vladimirovna

Korchuganova

Moscow

administrative detention of 5 days

09/05/2019, Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir

1,000

16523/20

14/03/2020

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich LYSENKO

1982Natalya Andreyevna

Balog

Krasnoyarsk

administrative fine of RUB 15, 000

16/09/2019,

Moscow City Court

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

3,900

17825/20

30/03/2020

Oleg Aleksandrovich MOROZOV

1990Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Pomazuyev

Vilnius

administrative fine of RUB 15, 000

28/11/2019, Moscow City Court

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.

3,900

21258/20

12/05/2020

Stepan Yegorovich PAZENKO

1995Anastasiya Nikolayevna

Sirotina

Moscow

administrative fine of RUB 10, 000

12/11/2019, Moscow City Court

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

3,900

21471/20

27/04/2020

Vladimir Gennadyevich DERYABIN

1986Roman Filippovich

Ustinov

Moscow

administrative fine of RUB 30,000,

suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months

27/11/2019 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow

1,000

22068/20

17/04/2020

Yekaterina Vasilyevna KRASNOVA

1990Roman Filippovich

Ustinov

Moscow

administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months

23/10/2019, Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow

1,000

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