Last Updated on November 23, 2023 by LawEuro
European Court of Human Rights
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ANDREYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 26870/19 and 24 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 Andreyev 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 the administrative-offence proceedings. In some applications the 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, 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. In some applications 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 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, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, and Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 72-74 and 81-82, 5 April 2022, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. 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 applications admissible;
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 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
ActingDeputy 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. | 26870/19
08/05/2019 |
Sergey Yuryevich ANDREYEV
1977 |
suspension of the driving licence for 1 year | 22/11/2018,
Leninskiy District Court of Tula |
1,000 | ||
| 2. | 50285/19
10/09/2019 |
Ivan Mikhaylovich KASHNIKOV
1978 |
Andrey Pavlovich
Mitrofanov Gornyak |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months | 17/05/2019,
Loktevskiy District Court of Gornyak |
1,000 | |
| 3. | 576/20
14/12/2019 |
Aleksandr Vladimirovich ROMANOV
1982 |
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin Volsk |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000,
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of driving licence for 1 year and 6 months |
31/07/2020,
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region 06/12/2019, Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 | |
| 4. | 773/20
10/12/2019 |
Andrey Vasilyevich YELKHOV
1970 |
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin Volsk |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 10 months | 02/12/2019,
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 | |
| 5. | 5278/20
31/12/2019 |
Kristina Valeryevna OGANYAN
1995 |
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin Volsk |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months | 20/12/2019,
Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 | |
| 6. | 6963/20
28/01/2020 |
Kamil Danilevich RAKHIMOV
1994 |
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
administrative detention of 10 days | 06/08/2019,
Moscow City Court |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 27/07/2019 the applicant was taken to a 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 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art. 29.6(4) CAO).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) |
3,900 |
| 7. | 13020/20
25/02/2020 |
Sergey Vladimirovich LATYSHEV
1985 |
Andrey Olegovich
Valenkov Nizhniy Novgorod |
administrative fine of RUB 350,000 | 30/10/2019,
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court |
1,000 | |
| 8. | 11456/21
29/01/2021 |
Vladimir Mikhaylovich MITROFANOV
1999 |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000 | 29/07/2020,
Angarsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region |
1,000 | ||
| 9. | 13203/21
13/02/2021 |
Oleg Yuryevich ADAYEV
1974 |
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin Volsk |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000 | 29/01/2021,
Volsky District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 | |
| 10. | 20575/21
15/03/2021 |
Ruslan Nikolayevich UKHANOV
1981 |
Yevgeniy Valeryevich Kulakov
Arkhangelsk |
administrative fine of RUB 1,000 | 12/02/2021, Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk | 1,000 | |
| 11. | 23083/21
12/04/2021 |
Vladimir Vladimirovich BARABANOV
1967 |
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Pomazuyev Vilnius |
administrative fine of RUB 10,000, administrative fine of RUB 1,000 | 16/03/2021,
Bryansk Regional 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 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence. The applicant was arrested on 31 January 2021 and was brought to the police station | 3,900 |
| 12. | 24870/21
18/04/2021 |
Dmitriy Valeryevich YEGOROV
1981 |
Innokentiy Valeryevich
Yegorov Yakutsk |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months | 19/10/2020,
Yakutsk Town Court, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) |
1,000 | |
| 13. | 27156/21
05/05/2021 |
Fakhrad Sardarovich SHISHKOV
1972 |
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Zboroshenko Mytishchi |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 18 months | 17/11/2020, Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow | 1,000 | |
| 14. | 32129/21
31/05/2021 |
Yuriy Sergeyevich LOBUREV
1987 |
Andrey Olegovich
Valenkov Nizhniy Novgorod |
suspension of the driving licence, administrative fine of RUB 30,000 | 01/12/2020,
Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod |
1,000 | |
| 15. | 34968/21
15/06/2021 |
Denis Mikhaylovich BAKUSHIN
1982 |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months | 28/05/2021,
Konoshskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region |
1,000 | ||
| 16. | 34983/21
30/06/2021 |
Sergey Viktorovich ASTAKHIN
1967 |
administrative fine of RUB 5,000 | 02/03/2021,
Kirishi Town Court of the Leningrad Region |
1,000 | ||
| 17. | 36848/21
05/07/2021 |
Andrey Vasilyevich PODPASKOV
1985 |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months | 04/06/2021,
Zavodskoy District Court of Saratov |
1,000 | ||
| 18. | 43821/21
12/08/2021 |
Marina Viktorovna ROMANOVA
1984 |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months | 12/02/2021,
Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow |
1,000 | ||
| 19. | 44368/21
17/08/2021 |
Aleksey Yuryevich LOGUNOV
1990 Yevgeniy Maksimovich MARTYNOV 2000 |
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Zboroshenko Mytishchi |
administrative fine of RUB 10,000 to each applicant | 16/04/2021,
Moscow City Court |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful pre-trial detention – applicants were taken to the police station on 31/01/2021 as administrative suspects: 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 administrative suspects on 31/01/2021 beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) | 3,900 |
| 20. | 44387/21
16/08/2021 |
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich BORISOV
1990 |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 2 years | 12/08/2021, Shipunovsky District Court of the Altay Region | 1,000 | ||
| 21. | 45000/21
21/08/2021 |
Dmitriy Anatolyevich ROMANOV
1976 |
Vologin Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin Volsk |
suspension of the driving licence for a year and 6 months, administrative fine of RUB 30,000 | 18/08/2021,
Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 | |
| 22. | 50265/21
27/09/2021 |
Mikhail Yulianovich SELITSKIY
1994 |
administrative detention of 5 days | 29/03/2021,
Rostov Regional Court |
1,000 | ||
| 23. | 51716/21
01/10/2021 |
Vladimir Vladimirovich PALYULIN
1984 |
Oksana Gennadyevna
Olgerdt Moscow |
administrative detention of 12 days | 02/04/2021,
Moscow City Court |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – applicant was 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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled |
3,900 |
| 24. | 54386/21
08/10/2021 |
Rostislav Sergeyevich DEDYUK
1972 |
suspension of the hunting licence for 12 months | 14/04/2021,
Kirov Town Court of the Leningrad Region |
1,000 | ||
| 25. | 54842/21
16/10/2021 |
Konstantin Aleksandrovich ARKHANGELSKIY
1979 |
Aleksey Borisovich
Vologin Volsk |
administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months | 29/09/2021,
Balakovskiy District Court of the Saratov Region |
1,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply