BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MAKLASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 70005/17 (Judgment : Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association : Second Section Committee) [2023] ECHR 285 (30 March 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/285.html
Cite as: [2023] ECHR 285, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0330JUD007000517, CE:ECHR:2023:0330JUD007000517

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MAKLASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 70005/17 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 Maklashin 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 organisers and/or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS


5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION


6.  The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and/or 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, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion in application nos. 80792/17, 2567/18, 5283/18, 5324/18 and 5343/18, 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.

III.   OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW


11.  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 § 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 Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful administrative arrest, and 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)).

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS


12.  In view of its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by some of the applicants in relation to other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings.

V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION


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], no. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 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,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the complaints concerning the right to peaceful assembly and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings,

3.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the right to peaceful assembly;

4.      Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5.      Holds

(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.

6.      Dismisses the reminder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

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 per applicant

(in euros) [1]

 

70005/17

07/09/2017

Boris Sergeyevich MAKLASHIN

1997

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

St Petersburg

 

12/06/2017

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fines of RUB 500 and RUB 10,000, respectively

St Petersburg City Court

13/07/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasoned arrest and detention on 12/06/2017; detention in excess of 3 hours; issue raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court on 13/07/2017

4,000

 

80792/17

16/11/2017

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ZHEBREV

1982

Glukhov

Aleksey Vladimirovich

Novocheboksarsk

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Nizhniy Novgorod

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

17/05/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrested on 26/03/2017, at 4.10 p.m., brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence, released on the same day at 8 p.m.; raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 17/05/2017

 

4,000

 

82703/17

24/11/2017

Yelena

Yuryevna SHARAPOVA

1986

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna

Strasbourg

Anti-corruption assembly

 

Moscow, Pushkinskaya square / Tverskaya street

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow

City Court

16/06/2017

 

3,500

 

84265/17

14/12/2017

Igor Aleksandrovich KARKLIN

1990

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Privokzalnaya Square near the Lenin monument, Vladivostok

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Primorye Regional Court

14/06/2017

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Primorye Regional Court on 14/06/2017

3,500

 

2567/18

08/12/2017

Andrey Vladimirovich MINEYEV

1990

Glukhov

Aleksey Vladimirovich

Novocheboksarsk

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Nizhniy Novgorod

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

15/06/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; issue examined by the appeal court,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15/06/2017

4,000

 

5012/18

08/01/2018

Garegin Robertovich ARAKELYAN

1994

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Moscow

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow

City Court

20/07/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasoned arrest on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,

 

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 20/07/2017

 

4,000

 

5038/18

08/01/2018

Nadezhda Leonidovna LOZINA

1961

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Moscow

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow

City Court

12/07/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasoned arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal

4,000

 

5283/18

17/01/2018

Anastasiya Borisovna GRYZUNOVA

1976

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Moscow

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow

City Court

02/08/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; issue examined by the appeal court,

 

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 02/08/2017

 

4,000

 

5324/18

08/01/2018

Vilen Vladimirovich SHEVCHENKO

1975

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Moscow

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow

City Court

16/08/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Unreasonable arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal,

 

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 16/08/2017

4,000

 

5343/18

08/01/2018

Ilya

Yuryevich BARABANOV

1993

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Moscow

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow

City Court

24/07/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unreasonable arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal,

 

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 24/07/2017

 

4,000

 

11525/18

17/02/2018

Stanislav Sergeyevich SHISHKIN

1972

 

 

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Kaliningrad

 

12/06/2017

 

 

Manifestation in support of Navalnyy’s presidential campaign

 

Kaliningrad

 

07/10/2017

Article 20.2

§ 5 of CAO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 8 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 hours of community work

Kaliningrad Regional Court

17/08/2017

 

 

 

 

Kaliningrad Regional Court

25/01/2018

 

4,000

 

12445/18

03/03/2018

Dmitriy Viktorovich KARPENKO

1970

Kholodtsova

Inna

Vadimovna

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Moscow

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2

§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow

City Court

06/09/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest at the place of manifestation; lengthy detention in a van; then detention in a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,

 

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 06/09/2017

 

4,000

 

23661/18

04/05/2018

Dmitriy Anatolyevich MILLER

1982

Benyash

Mikhail Mikhaylovich

Sochi

Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy

 

Krasnaya / Lenin str, Krasnodar

 

07/10/2017

Article 20.2

§ 5 of CAO

35 hours of compulsory work

Krasnodar Regional Court

15/11/2017

 

3,500

 

24447/18

10/05/2018

Stanislav Anatolyevich RAKITIN

1984

Yatsenko

Irina Aleksandrovna

Moscow

Anti-government manifestation

 

Manezhnaya square, Moscow

 

05/11/2017

Article 19.3

§ 1 of CAO

14 days of administrative detention

Moscow

City Court

10/11/2017

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 10/11/2017

 

5,000

 

24744/18

08/05/2018

Daniil Sergeyevich SKORBILIN

1995

Yatsenko

Irina Aleksandrovna

Moscow

Anti-government manifestation

 

Pushkinskaya square, Moscow

 

05/11/2017

Article 19.3

§ 1 of CAO

14 days of administrative detention

Moscow

City Court

08/11/2017

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 08/11/2017

 

5,000

 

28308/18

04/06/2018

Vladislav Aleksandrovich NOVIK

1996

Kholodtsova

Inna

Vadimovna

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Moscow

 

26/03/2017

Article 20.2

§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow

City Court

19/01/2018

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unlawful arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,

 

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 19/01/2018

 

4,000

 

28687/18

04/06/2018

Kseniya Olegovna CHURILOVA

1992

Yelanchik

Oleg Aleksandrovich

Moscow

Anti-corruption manifestation

 

Moscow

 

12/06/2017

Article 20.2

§ 5 of CAO

fine of

RUB 20,000

Moscow

City Court

04/12/2017

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 12/06/2017. The police officers failed to draw up a record of the applicant’s arrest and detained her for about 3 hours in a police van and another 3 hours at a police station. The total time of her detention exceeded 6 hours; raised on appeal,

 

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 04/12/2017

 

4,000

 

57050/18

24/11/2018

Tatyana Stepanovna PRISHANOVA

1950

Romanov

Pavel

Valeryevich

Cheboksary

Opposition manifestation

 

Smolensk

 

05/05/2018

Article 20.2

§ 8 of CAO

60 hours of compulsory work

Smolensk Regional Court

22/08/2018

 

3,500

 

57352/18

16/11/2018

Mariya Andreyevna RABINOVICH

1993

Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich

Tbilisi, Georgia

Political manifestation

 

Irkutsk

 

05/05/2018

Article 20.2

§ 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Irkutsk Regional Court

18/07/2018

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court on 18/07/2018

3,500

 

58067/18

13/11/2018

Sergey Dmitriyevich VETLUZHSKIKH

1998

Sholokhov

Igor

Nikolayevich

Kazan

Opposition manifestation

 

Kazan

 

05/05/2018

Article 20.2

§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Supreme Court of Tatarstan

04/07/2018

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 04/07/2018

3,500

 

 



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


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/285.html