CASE OF ABLYAKIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 75530/17 and 9 others

Last Updated on September 7, 2023 by LawEuro

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ABLYAKIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 75530/17 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 September 2023

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

In the case of Ablyakimov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 6 July 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in their administrative-offence proceedings. Some applicants 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. 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).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention

7. The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

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, 20 September 2016). 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, 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.

IV. 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.

12. 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 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; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 178-88, concerning the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.

13. As regards other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings, submitted by some of the applicants, 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

14. 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.”

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Zaytseva and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 41136/17 and 10 others, 2 March 2023), the Court considers 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 the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;

3. 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 the 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 the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by some applicants about the administrative-offence proceedings;

4. Hold that these applications disclosed a breach of Article 6 of the Convention on the ground of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and 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 7 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina                 Lorraine Schembri Orland
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 (in euros)[i]
1.	75530/17 19/10/2017	Ruslan Yakubovich ABLYAKIMOV 1990	Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow	administrative detention of 7 days	20/04/2017, Moscow City Court	Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the Code of the Administrative Offences	2,000
2.	83056/17 07/12/2017	Yelena Yevgenyevna CHERNETSKAYA 1974	Vakhitov Ilyas Salimovich Vniissok	administrative fine of RUB 10,000	14/06/2017, Moscow City Court		1,000
3.	44769/18 11/09/2018	Andrey Viktorovich OREL 1977	Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow	administrative detention of 15 days	14/03/2018, Moscow City Court	Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the Code of the Administrative Offences	2,000
4.	44847/18 08/09/2018	Oleg Yuryevich MAZIN 1969	Vologin Aleksey Borisovich Volsk	administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence	06/09/2018, Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region		1,000
5.	45836/18 19/09/2018	Anzhela Valeryevna DYATLOVA 1980		administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence	22/03/2018, Orenburgskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region		1,000
6.	49737/18 13/10/2018	Dmitriy Vladimirovich ISAYEV 1979	Vologin Aleksey Borisovich Volsk	administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence	25/09/2018, Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court		1,000
7.	57712/18 12/11/2018	Vasiliy Alekseyevich ZRYUYEV 1997	Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius	administrative fine of RUB 10,000	14/06/2018, Voronezh Regional Court		1,000
8.	56128/22 19/11/2022	Olga Viktorovna ANDREYEVA 1979		administrative fine of RUB 10,000	19/07/2022, Moscow City Court		1,000
9.	325/23 02/12/2022	Rim Faridovich GUBAYEV 1993	Filatchev Oleg Vladimirovich Moscow	administrative fine of RUB 20,000	03/08/2022, Moscow City Court	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 7.40 p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 01.00 a.m. on 28/02/2022	3,500
10.	906/23 01/11/2022	Konstantin Vladimirovich SIDELNIKOV 2000	Shindyapin Arkadiy Vitalyevich Moscow	administrative fine of RUB 20,000	15/08/2022, Moscow City Court		1,000

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