Last Updated on November 10, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PARAMONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 29388/18 and 4 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 November 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Paramonov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,
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 applicants were represented by Mr I. Zhdanov, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. 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 6 § 1of the Convention
7. The applicants complained 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, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”
8. The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirements allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence case which falls within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article 6 of the Convention.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 10810/15, 31 January 2017), 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.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The 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 Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 81-142, 5 January 2016, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful administrative arrest.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. As regards other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about the administrative-offence proceedings, submitted by the applicants in applications nos. 50824/18, 50825/18 and 6645/19, the Court, having reached the conclusion about the lack of impartiality of the tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 10 above), does not consider it necessary to examine them separately.
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, 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.
15. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 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 further complaints raised under Article 6 of the Convention in applications nos. 50824/18, 50825/18 and 6645/19 about the administrative-offence proceedings;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings;
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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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
|
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)[i] |
| 1. | 29388/18
09/06/2018 |
Andrey Viktorovich PARAMONOV
1982 |
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius |
fine of
RUB 10,000 |
06/12/2017
Moscow City Court (decision received on 25/05/2018
|
Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti-corruption meeting on Pushkinskaya square, Moscow on 26/03/2017.
Conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO with fine of RUB 10,000. Moscow City Court, 06/12/2017 (received on 25/05/2018) |
3,900 |
| 2. | 50824/18
10/10/2018 |
GeorgiyKonstantinovich SHINKAREV
1993 |
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius |
fine of RUB 10,000 | 14/06/2018
St Petersburg City Court |
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 05/05/2018; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal;
Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti-Putin election manifestation in St Petersburg on 05/05/2018; Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO; fine of RUB 10,000;St Petersburg City Court 14/06/2018. |
3,900 |
| 3. | 50825/18
10/10/2018 |
Nikolay Stepanovich KAMARDIN
1953 |
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius |
fine of
RUB 10,000 |
20/06/2018
Voronezh Regional Court |
Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti-Putin election manifestation in Voronezh on 05/05/2018; Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;
fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court, 20/06/2018. |
3,900 |
| 4. | 6645/19
21/01/2019 |
VsevolodSergeyevich UKRAINSKIY
1976 |
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius |
fine of
RUB 10,000 |
16/08/2018
Moscow City Court |
Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Political manifestation in Moscow on 12/06/2017; Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;
fine of RUB 10,000; Moscow City Court, 16/08/2018. |
3,900 |
| 5. | 8792/19
21/01/2019 |
Sergey Mikhaylovich KORNEYEV
1987 |
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius |
fine of
RUB 10,000 |
29/08/2018
Smolensk Regional Court |
Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Manifestation against the prohibition for participation of an opposition leader in the elections – Smolensk on;28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO;
fine of RUB 10,000; Smolensk Regional Court, 29/08/2018 |
3,900 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply