MALYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 20643/21 (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association : Fifth Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 439 (16 May 2024)

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

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MALYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 20643/21 (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association : Fifth Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 439 (16 May 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/439.html
Cite as: [2024] ECHR 439

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF MALYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application nos. 20643/21 and 13 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

16 May 2024

 

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


In the case of Malyshev and Others v. Russia,

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

 María Elósegui, President,
 Mattias Guyomar,
 Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 April 2024,

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 or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

  1. 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.

  1. JURISDICTION


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).

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION


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 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, 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.

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


12.  The 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 § 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, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.

  1. REMAINING COMPLAINTS


14.  The applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION


15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

  1. Decides to join the applications;
  2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
  3. Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention;
  4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
  5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
  6. 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 May 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
 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 / criminal offence

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]

  1.    

20643/21

29/03/2021

Aleksandr Vadimovich MALYSHEV

2000

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Pomazuyev

Vilnius

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Tomsk

 

31/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine RUB 10,000

Tomsk Regional Court

25/02/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 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

  1.    

21563/21

01/04/2021

Nadezhda Petrovna MAY

1998

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Pomazuyev

Vilnius

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Tomsk

 

31/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Tomsk Regional Court

05/03/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 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

  1.    

33593/21

22/06/2021

Yevgeniy Andreyevich TSVETKOV

1999

Konstantin Aleksandrovich

Markin

Velikiy Novgorod

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Velikiy Novgorod

 

23/01/2021

article 20.2 § 2 of CAO

detention for 7 days

Novgorod Regional Court

04/02/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 2.39 p.m. on 23/01/2021 until the court hearing on 24/01/2021,

 

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

 

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.

5,000

  1.    

58713/21

12/11/2021

Matvey Aleksandrovich PENKOV

1992

Konstantin Mikhaylovich

Zinovyev

Nizhniy Novgorod

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Nizhniy Novgorod

 

31/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

13/05/2021

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

 

3,500

  1.    

224/22

26/11/2021

Aleksandr Konstantinovich KOZLOV

1995

Natalya Andreyevna

Baranova

Moscow

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Moscow

 

31/01/2021

 

 

 

article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

27/05/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,

 

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

4,000

  1.    

830/22

01/12/2021

Sergey Sergeyevich SAVELYEV

1987

Darya Dmitriyevna

Aksenova

Kolomna

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Moscow

 

23/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

09/06/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,

 

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

4,000

  1.    

2083/22

15/12/2021

Roman Dmitriyevich POPOV

1997

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Nizhniy Novgorod

 

31/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

16/06/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 1.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 8.50 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 administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.    

2802/22

30/12/2021

Andrey Vladimirovich STUPIN

1993

Ivan Yuryevich

Zhdanov

Vilnius

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Izhevsk

 

21/04/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic

26/07/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 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

  1.    

3645/22

30/12/2021

Yevgeniy Yuryevich BYCHENKOV

1979

Ivan Yuryevich

Zhdanov

Vilnius

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Vladimir

 

23/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Vladimir Regional Court

19/07/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. on 23/01/2021 until 3 p.m. on 25/01/2021,

 

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

4,000

  1.  

7328/22

27/01/2022

Andrey Andreyevich TROITSKIY

1986

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Moscow

 

02/02/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

29/07/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 11 a.m. on 02/02/2021 until 6 p.m. on 02/02/2021,

 

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

4,000

  1.  

7335/22

20/01/2022

Kirill Vladimirovich MALYSHEV

1999

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Moscow

 

31/01/2021

article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

11/08/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 3.50 p.m. on 02/02/2021,

 

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

4,000

  1.  

9055/22

19/01/2022

Rada Yevgenyevna SHAKIROVA

2000

Viktor Valeryevich

Kochenkov

Izhevsk

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Izhevsk

 

21/04/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic

19/07/2021

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

 

3,500

  1.  

12069/22

30/01/2022

Svetlana Vladimirovna BAS

1991

Anna Yevgenyevna

Bochilo

Barnaul

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Barnaul

 

21/04/2021

 

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Altay Regional Court

11/08/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 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

  1.  

49517/22

07/10/2022

Ilya Mikhailovich BYSTROV

1999

Valeriya Aleksandrovna

Arshinova

Moscow

Anti-war protest

 

Moscow

 

27/02/2022

article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

07/06/2022

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/02/2022 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

 

 


[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/2024/439.html