CASE OF FADEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

      THIRD SECTION CASE OF FADEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 50345/18 and 14 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 January 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fadeyeva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Kovatcheva, President,  Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,  Mateja Đurović, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 December 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION6.  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). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION7.  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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocol, 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 Protocol 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); 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS14.  Some 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 in paragraphs 10-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15.  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, Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;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;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocol thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);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 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva  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 and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]    50345/18 10/10/2018 Kseniya Vladislavovna FADEYEVA 1992   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius "He is not our Tsar"   Tomsk   05/05/2018     "He is not our Tsar"   Tomsk   05/05/2018     Rally to support A. Navalnyy   Tomsk   31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO             Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 250,000             detention for 10 days             fine of RUB 20,000 Tomsk Regional Court 29/05/2018             Tomsk Regional Court 08/06/2018             Tomsk Regional Court 24/02/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - all sets of proceedings 7,500    33111/21 24/06/2021 Isa Baumatgireyevich KHAMKHOYEV 1962   Kanevskaya Mariya Aleksandrovna St Petersburg Gathering on rehabilitation of repressed people   Nazran   21/11/2020 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 03/03/2021   3,500    41171/21 27/07/2021 Tatyana Viktorovna SPORYSHEVA 1976   Gak Irina Vladimirovna Rostov-on-Don Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Rostov-on-Don   23/01/2021 Article 20.1 § 2 of CAO detention for 5 days Rostov Regional Court 04/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station for compiling an offence record between 3.55 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. on 23/01/2021,   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    27431/22 17/05/2022 Lelya Aleksandrovna NORDIK 1989   Zyryanova Mariya Sergeyevna St Petersburg Rally against violence to women   St Petersburg   25/11/2021 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 75,000 St. Petersburg City Court 18/01/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station for compiling an offence report on 25-26/11/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.   4,000    4315/23 23/12/2022 Nadezhda Igorevna STEPANYUK 1991   Prosvirkina Kseniya Dmitriyevna Moscow Anti-war rally   Moscow   06/03/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 23/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station for compiling an offence record on 06-07/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings.   4,000    11197/23 20/02/2023 Anna Gennadiyevna SHATUNOVSKAYA-BYURNO 1974       Anti-war rally   Moscow   25/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Escorting to the police station for compiling administrative offence record and detention at the police station between 9.15 p.m. on 25/02/2022 and 1.10 a.m. on 26/02/2022.   4,000    7765/24 22/01/2024 Darya Vladimirovna MAKOVEYEVA     Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow Anti-war rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 22/09/2023 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - detention in excess of three hours, on 27/02/2022 between 6.00 p.m. and 10.20 p.m.   4,000    7845/24 16/02/2024 Anton Aleksandrovich MALGAZHDAROV 1990   Belova Tatyana Aleksandrovna Moscow Anti-war banner   Moscow   12/06/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 17/10/2023   3,500    7847/24 19/02/2024 Ilya Sergeyevich KOPYLOV 2000   Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow Anti-war rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 23/08/2023   The administrative case was returned to the first-instance court (the Butyrskiy District Court in Moscow) and was available in its registry on 19/10/2023 (the applicant submited a copy of the electronic tracking system available on the District Court’s Internet site). The appeal decision was not sent to the applicant and he could only obtain a copy of it on 19/10/2023, after the case file had been returned from the appeal court to the first-instance court. Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - detention in excess of three hours, on 27/02/2022 between 7.50 p.m. and 11.55 p.m.   4,000  7849/24 19/02/2024 Yekaterina Pavlovna KONDRATOVA 2003   Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow Anti-war rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/10/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention in excess of three hours, on 27/02/2022 between 6.00 p.m. and 11.15 p.m.   4,000  7858/24 14/02/2024 Anton Yakovlevich LOSHKAREV 1983       Anti-war rally   Moscow   06/03/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 17/10/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention in excess of three hours, between 5.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022 and 4.30 a.m. on 07/03/2022. 4,000  7862/24 21/02/2024 Sofya Gyrmayevna KASSAYE 1979   Chekhova Valentina Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war rally   Moscow   06/03/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 23/10/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detained in excess of three hours, between 2.15 p.m. on 06/03/2022 and 2.00 p.m. on 07/03/2022. 4,000  8268/24 06/03/2024 Erik Aleksandrovich KURUSHIN 2003       Anti-war rally   Moscow   28/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 07/11/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention in excess of three hours, between 8.54 p.m. on 28/02/2022 and 2 a.m. on 01/03/2022.   4,000  9729/24 22/02/2021 Natalya Nikolayevna TSAREVA 1986       Anti-war rally   Moscow   28/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 23/10/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detained in excess of three hours, between 8.57 p.m. on 28/02/2022 and 2.48 a.m. on 01/03/2022.   4,000  10000/24 11/03/2024 Sergey Anatolyevich POLYAKOV 1971   Chekhova Valentina Andreyevna Moscow Commemoration of B. Nemtsov   Moscow   27/02/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 05/12/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention in excess of three hours, between 3.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 and 00.45am on 28/02/2022   4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.