Last Updated on November 23, 2023 by LawEuro
European Court of Human Rights
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 21527/18 and 8 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 Kotov 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.
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, 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, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019).
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention.
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 about the absence of a prosecuting party in the 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 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 the administrative-offence proceedings;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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
|
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. | 21527/18
19/04/2018 |
Stanislav Vitalyevich KOTOV
1970 |
fine of RUB 20,000 | 11/01/2018,
Arkhangelsk Regional Court |
1,000 | ||
| 2. | 26172/18
21/05/2018 |
Aleksey Sergeyevich VINOGRADOV
1986 |
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin Volsk |
community service of 120 hours | 10/05/2018,
Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 | |
| 3. | 28777/18
05/06/2018 |
Yashar Ali Ogly BADALOV
1963 |
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin Volsk |
fine of RUB 30,000;
suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 7 months |
30/05/2018,
Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 | |
| 4. | 30638/18
13/06/2018 |
Aleksandr Sergeyevich POSKREBETYEV
1973 |
Yevgeniy Valeryevich
Kulakov Arkhangelsk |
fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence | 23/05/2018,
Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk |
1,000 | |
| 5. | 31412/18
25/06/2018 |
Artem Sergeyevich KOGAN
1967 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
fine of RUB 20,000 | 22/01/2018,
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 12/06/2017 (raised on appeal in the administrative-offence proceedings): detention as administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)- (4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§121-22,10 April 2018);
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable on the spot to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity. |
3,900 |
| 6. | 31427/18
25/06/2018 |
Aleksandr Borisovich PALTSEV
1967 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
fine of RUB 15,000 | 02/02/2018,
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 12/06/2017 (raised on appeal in the administrative-offence proceedings): Detention as an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5
(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§121-22,10 April 2018); Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable on the spot to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity |
3,900 |
| 7. | 31871/18
18/06/2018 |
Oleg Fedorovich KRENEV
1977 |
fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence | 23/05/2018,
Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk |
1,000 | ||
| 8. | 33004/18
09/07/2018 |
Ivan Vyacheslavovich YEZHOV
1988 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
fine of RUB 10,000 | 22/03/2018,
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 12/06/2017 from 5 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. (raised on appeal in the administrative-offence proceedings): Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable on the spot to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity. Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO). | 3,900 |
| 9. | 33226/18
05/07/2018 |
Oleg Aleksandrovich ZHARIKOV
1984 |
fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence | 25/06/2018,
Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply