Last Updated on November 9, 2023 by LawEuro
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.
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”. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
Read the entire document.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BAKHMATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 14839/21 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bakhmatov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 October 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 organisers or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto.
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 11 OF THE CONVENTION
7. 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.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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 Protocols 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.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. 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 paragraph 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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,
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 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, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the 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 9 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
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 per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 14839/21
25/02/2021 |
Semen Yevgenyevich BAKHMATOV
2001 |
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Zboroshenko Mytishchi |
Manifestation against constitutional amendments
Moscow 15/07/2020 |
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000 | Moscow City Court
26/08/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 15/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings |
5,000 |
| 2. | 25911/21
07/05/2021 |
Ilya Grigoryevich ZHABROV
1998 |
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Zboroshenko Mytishchi |
Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow 31/01/2021 |
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | 10 days of administrative arrest | Moscow City Court
05/02/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings |
5,000 |
| 3. | 26880/21
17/05/2021 |
Anton Vyacheslavovich MATLIN
1987 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow 02/02/2021 |
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | 12 days of administrative arrest | Moscow City Court
10/02/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 02/02/2021 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and for bringing to the court on 03/02/2021 (overall duration of 12h 35min);
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 on 03/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO |
5,000 |
| 4. | 28248/21
30/04/2021 |
Aleksey Vadimovich MIKHALEVSKIY
2000 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow 31/01/2021 |
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | 7 days of administrative arrest | Moscow City Court
18/02/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 31/01/2021 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and for bringing to the court on 01/02/2021 (overall duration of 29h 40min);
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 on 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO |
5,000 |
| 5. | 30342/21
11/05/2021 |
Oleg Vladimirovich KOSAREV
1996 |
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Zboroshenko Mytishchi |
Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow 02/02/2021 |
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | 10 days of administrative arrest | Moscow City Court
09/02/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest, escorting and detention on 02/02/2021 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings |
5,000 |
| 6. | 31172/21
13/05/2021 |
Aleksandr Yuryevich SHCHEDUKHIN
1996 |
Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow 31/01/2021 |
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | 10 days of administrative arrest | Moscow City Court
12/02/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting and detention on 31/01-01/02/2021 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and for bringing to the court on 01/02/2021;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings |
5,000 | |
| 7. | 31544/21
15/05/2021 |
Andrey Valentinovich VOLGUSHEV
1997 |
Mansur Idrisovich
Gilmanov Podolsk |
Manifestation against constitutional amendments
Moscow 15/07/2020 |
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court
18/11/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 15-16/07/2020 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings |
5,000 |
| 8. | 31626/21
07/06/2021 |
Aleksey Aleksandrovich SEKOTSKIY
1983 |
Yelena Yuryevna
Pershakova Moscow |
Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow 23/01/2021 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court
22/03/2021 |
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 – arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 23/01/2021 in excess of 3 hours for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence |
5,000 |
| 9. | 31984/21
15/06/2021 |
Konstantin Nikolayevich MEZENTSEV
1983 |
Yelena Yuryevna
Pershakova Moscow |
Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow 31/01/2021 |
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | 10 days of administrative arrest | Moscow City Court
05/02/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 31/01/2021-01/02/2021 (for 15 hours) for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and for signing the court summons on 01/02/2021;
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 on 02/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO |
5,000 |
| 10. | 33882/21
03/06/2021 |
Oleg Aleksandrovich SVYATKIN
1995 |
Aleksey Vladimirovich
Glukhov Novocheboksarsk |
Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy
Cheboksary 23/01/2021 |
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia
11/03/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 30/01/2021 (a few days after the manifestation) for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings |
5,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply