Přehled

Text rozhodnutí
Datum rozhodnutí
23.3.2023
Rozhodovací formace
Významnost
3
Číslo stížnosti / sp. zn.

Rozsudek

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF GUKOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 39118/12 and 19 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

23 March 2023

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


In the case of Gukovskiy and Others v. Russia,

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

Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 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 participants and organisers of public assemblies. Some applicants 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants and an organiser (application no. 39118/12) 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.

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 2006XIV, 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, 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.

  1. 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 findings in Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, 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, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 21-28, 8 October 2019, related to the exercise of the right to examine witnesses in those proceedings.

  1. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, there is no need to examine (the other aspects of) the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

13. Furthermore, some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15. 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.”

16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its caselaw (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 under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
  3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
  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;

  1. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
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 and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros)[1]

39118/12

08/06/2012

Igor

Petrovich GUKOVSKIY

1987

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Ms N. Morozova and others

Rally to protest against fraud during the elections to the State Duma on 04/12/2011

Moscow

05/12/2011

Article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 2,000

15 days of detention

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow

24/01/2012

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow

10/12/2011

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - a police officer, whose pre-trial written statements were used for the conviction, and two witnesses on behalf of the defence in the case under Art. 19.3 of the CAO which ended with the final decision of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 10/12/2011 (Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 21-28, 8 October 2019)

5,000,

for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the applicant;

900,

for legal costs, to be paid directly to Ms Natalya Morozova

43452/16

09/07/2016

Yuriy Valeryevich VILNID

1976

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich

Mytishchi

Rally to support Navalnyy brothers

Moscow

30/12/2014

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 1,000

Moscow

City Court

30/03/2016

2,000

53167/17

13/06/2017

Yuriy Vyacheslavovich TIVILEV

1991

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

24 hours of community work

Tula

Regional Court

03/05/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours 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

53174/17

13/07/2017

Dmitriy Nikolayevich KOLESNIK

1987

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Tula

Regional Court

02/05/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 26/03/2017 for compiling an offence report

4,000

70352/17

07/09/2017

Andrey Aleksandrovich KISELEV

1987

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Tula

Regional Court

04/05/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours 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

70384/17

07/09/2017

Daniil

Olegovich GOZHIY

1985

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Tula

Regional Court

04/05/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest and detention on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence

4,000

70388/17

07/09/2017

Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich NIKOLAYEV

1992

Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich

Melekhovo

Anticorruption rally

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

40 hours of community work

Tule

Regional Court

03/05/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a 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

70391/17

07/09/2017

Irina

Igorevna NESTERYUK

1984

Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich

Melekhovo

Anticorruption manifestation

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

28 hours of community work

Tula

Regional Court

04/05/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 26/03/2017 for compiling an offence report

4,000

70405/17

07/09/2017

Vadim Vladimirovich RUBTSOV

1984

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Moscow

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow

City Court

04/08/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours 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

70447/17

07/09/2017

Aleksandr Vladimirovich SUROVOY

1991

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Bryansk

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Bryansk

Regional Court

24/05/2017

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

3,500

70454/17

07/09/2017

Pavel

Yuryevich SUVOROV

1952

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

St Petersburg

12/06/2017

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 500

fine of RUB 10,000

St Petersburg

City Court

27/06/2017

St Petersburg

City Court

26/06/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 1213/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019);

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

4,000

78517/17

03/11/2017

Yuriy

Borisovich PEROV

1955

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Tula

Regional Court

05/05/2017

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

3,500

80593/17

14/11/2017

Anton

Pavlovich KONDAKOV

1990

Sotnikov

Dmitriy Valeryevich

Balashikha

Anticorruption rally

Tula

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Tula

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

2937/18

21/12/2017

Aleksandr Valeryevich FEDOROV

1994

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

St Petersburg

12/06/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

6 days of detention

St Petersburg

City Court

23/06/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on1213/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva, cited above);

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

5,000

3565/18

20/12/2017

Oleg

Igorevich LYTKIN

1989

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

St Petersburg

12/06/2017

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 1,000

fine of RUB 12,000

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;

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 1213/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva, cited above)

4,000

4923/18

03/01/2018

Yevgeniy Viktorovich LAPTEV

1991

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Moscow

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow

City Court

06/07/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a 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

4925/18

03/01/2018

Andrey Yaroslavovich MENSHIKOV

1989

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

St Petersburg

12/06/2017

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 500

fine of RUB 3,000

St Petersburg

City Court

06/07/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 1214/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva, cited above);

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

4,000

5243/18

03/01/2018

Alla

Andreyevna CHERNAYA

1946

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

St Petersburg

12/06/2017

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 500

fine of RUB 5,000

St Petersburg

City Court

06/07/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 1213/06/2017 the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (Korneyeva, cited above);

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

4,000

5337/18

08/01/2018

Vladimir Nikolayevich KUZMIN

1983

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Moscow

26/03/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow

City Court

02/08/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours 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

7244/18

22/01/2018

Yevgeniy Borisovich KALASHNIKOV

1988

Terekhov Konstantin

Ilyich

Moscow

Anticorruption rally

Kaliningrad

12/06/2017

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Kaliningrad Regional Court

24/08/2017

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station beyond 3 hours on 12/06/2017 for compiling an offence report

4,000


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