CASE OF MALTYZOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 18089/20 and 17 others

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 MALTYZOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 18089/20 and 17 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 Maltyzov 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 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 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

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 6 § 1of the Convention

6. The applicants complainedof 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.”

7. 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.

8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, including having studied the compliance with the six-month period under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question and concluded that it should be exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total whenever it either started to run or was due to expire at any time between 16 March and 15 June 2020), 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. As regards the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about unfairness of proceedings, submitted by the applicants in applications nos. 18089/20, 18180/20, 18188/20, 18197/20, 18199/20, 18232/20, 18233/20, 18235/20, 19482/20, 19485/20, 20477/20, 26232/20, 26776/20 and 26782/20, the Court, having reached the conclusion about the lack of impartiality of the tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 9 above), does not consider it necessary to examine them separately.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. 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.”

13. 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.

14. 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 in applications nos. 18089/20, 18180/20, 18188/20, 18197/20, 18199/20, 18232/20, 18233/20, 18235/20, 19482/20, 19485/20, 20477/20, 26232/20, 26776/20 and 26782/20 about unfair administrative-offence proceedings;

3. Holds that the applications 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 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. 18089/20

30/03/2020

Denis Germanovich MALTYZOV

1991

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 06/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 06/11/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
2. 18166/20

11/03/2020

Alik Mikhaylovich SHARAPOV

1958

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 18/09/2019 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 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 18/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
3. 18180/20

11/03/2020

Leonid Mikhaylovich MARIN

1977

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 24/09/2019 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 12/06/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 24/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
4. 18185/20

11/03/2020

Nikolay Nikolayevich SKOROKHODOV

1991

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court on 16/09/2019 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 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 16/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
5. 18188/20

11/03/2020

Sergey Dmitriyevich MAKAROV

1994

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 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 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 20,000/ Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
6. 18193/20

11/03/2020

Yelena Aleksandrovna MOZGOVAYA

1987

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 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 12/06/2019 in excess of

3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
7. 18197/20

11/03/2020

Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich SOKOL

1990

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 18/09/2019 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 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 18/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
8. 18199/20

11/03/2020

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich CHULKOV

1989

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 16/12/2019 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 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 16/12/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
9. 18201/20

11/03/2020

Vladimir Borisovich SAVENKOV

1982

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 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 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
10. 18232/20

19/03/2020

Anton Andreyevich TARAKANOV

1981

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
11. 18233/20

19/03/2020

Nadezhda Borisovna SUFTINA

1973

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 02/10/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
12. 18235/20

19/03/2020

Georgiy Viktorovich LOBANOV

1992

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 08/10/2019 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 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 08/10/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
13. 19482/20

23/03/2020

Nikolay Vladimirovich ZIMIREV

1984

Molokanova Tatyana Valeryevna

Moscow

fine of

RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court on 24/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police office on 10/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detained for more than 3 hours;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 24/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
14. 19485/20

16/03/2020

Yuriy Vladimirovich MANOKHIN

1998

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

fine of

RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court on 16/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 16/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
15. 20477/20

15/04/2020

Aleksey Artemovich GEVORKYAN

1997

Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich

Podolsk

fine of

RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court on 18/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 18/11/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
16. 26232/20

29/03/2020

Oksana Sergeyevna ZAVGORODNYAYA

1987

Gak Irina Vladimirovna

Rostov-on-Don

fine of

RUB 10,000

Rostov Regional Court on 27/09/2019 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 10/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Rostov-on-Don in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Rostov Regional Court on 27/09/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
17. 26776/20

02/04/2020

Albert Radistovich DAVYDOV

1972

Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna

Moscow

fine of

RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 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 10/08/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900
18. 26782/20

02/04/2020

Stanislav Sergeyevich TURUSOV

1990

Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna

Moscow

fine of

RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court on 02/10/2019 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 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing the record of administrative offence;

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Conviction under

article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 27/07/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 02/10/2019 (appeal decision).

3,900

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *