Last Updated on November 23, 2023 by LawEuro
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, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, 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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Full text of the document.
European Court of Human Rights
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 711/18 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Popov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 administrative-offence proceedings. Some applicants 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 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, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8. In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, 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.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and Protocols thereto, 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.
11. 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 its well-established case-law (see 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, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019, related to the right not be tried or punished twice in the criminal proceedings).
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative- offence proceedings.
VI. 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.
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 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings and the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see appended table), admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention;
4. Holds that these 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;
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 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
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/registration |
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. | 711/18
08/12/2017 |
Sergey Vladimirovich POPOV
1971 |
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
Peredruk St Petersburg |
administrative detention of 5 days
administrative fine of RUB 10,000 |
16/06/2017,
St Petersburg City Court 21/06/2017, St Petersburg City Court, |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest and detention on 12‑14/06/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – convicted twice for participation in one and the same public event on 12/06/2017 – final decisions convicting the applicant: St Petersburg City Court on 16/06/2017 and then on 21/06/2017 |
3,900 |
| 2. | 22829/18
08/05/2018 |
Vasiliy Yuryevich ZHIRKEVICH
1956 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
administrative fine of RUB 10,000 | 30/03/2018,
Moscow City Court |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest and detention for more than 3 hours on 12/06/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence | 3,900 |
| 3. | 12299/19
23/01/2019 |
Fedor Vladimirovich YARUNICHEV
1972 |
Yevgeniy Valeryevich
Kulakov Arkhangelsk |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 9 months | 26/12/2018, Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk | 1,000 | |
| 4. | 52429/19
27/09/2019 |
OOO SK IVIKON
2005 |
Artem Vyacheslavovich
Syntin Omsk |
administrative fine of RUB 100,000
administrative fine of RUB 200,000 |
12/04/2019, Kirovskiy District Court of Omsk
30/04/2019, Omskiy District Court of the Omsk Region |
4,000 | |
| 5. | 59586/19
05/11/2019 |
Boris Pavlovich USHAKOV
1983 |
Natalya Vladimirovna
Korchuganova Moscow |
administrative detention of 5 days | 09/05/2019, Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir | 1,000 | |
| 6. | 16523/20
14/03/2020 |
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich LYSENKO
1982 |
Natalya Andreyevna
Balog Krasnoyarsk |
administrative fine of RUB 15, 000 | 16/09/2019,
Moscow City Court |
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 up a record of administrative offence | 3,900 |
| 7. | 17825/20
30/03/2020 |
Oleg Aleksandrovich MOROZOV
1990 |
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Pomazuyev Vilnius |
administrative fine of RUB 15, 000 | 28/11/2019, Moscow City Court | 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 up a record of administrative offence. | 3,900 |
| 8. | 21258/20
12/05/2020 |
Stepan Yegorovich PAZENKO
1995 |
Anastasiya Nikolayevna
Sirotina Moscow |
administrative fine of RUB 10, 000 | 12/11/2019, Moscow City Court | 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 up a record of administrative offence | 3,900 |
| 9. | 21471/20
27/04/2020 |
Vladimir Gennadyevich DERYABIN
1986 |
Roman Filippovich
Ustinov Moscow |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000,
suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months |
27/11/2019 Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow | 1,000 | |
| 10. | 22068/20
17/04/2020 |
Yekaterina Vasilyevna KRASNOVA
1990 |
Roman Filippovich
Ustinov Moscow |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months | 23/10/2019, Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow | 1,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply