CASE OF PANTENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 884/22 and 17 others

Last Updated on February 1, 2024 by LawEuro

The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies.

---

European Court of Human Rights
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF PANTENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 884/22 and 17 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 February 2024

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

In the case of Pantenkov 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 11 January 2024,

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.

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, 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 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 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.

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 paragraphs 11 and 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 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 under Article 6 of the Convention;

4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;

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 1 February 2024, 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 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.	884/22 01/12/2021	Aleksey Borisovich PANTENKOV 1991	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Saratov 23/01/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 15,000	Saratov Regional Court 01/06/2021	Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	3,500
2.	7789/22 25/01/2022	Inessa Gennadyevna STRUKOVA 1967	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 02/02/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 20,000	Moscow City Court 03/08/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at noon and released at 7.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
3.	7794/22 25/01/2022	Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KIRYUKHIN 1998	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 02/02/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 10,000	Moscow City Court 29/07/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at 11.10 a.m. and released at 4.40 p.m. on 02/02/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
4.	8363/22 25/01/2022	Polina Romanovna KRASULYA 2000	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 02/02/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 15,000	Moscow City Court 03/08/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at 11.30 a.m. and released at 3.58 p.m. on 02/02/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
5.	8419/22 25/01/2022	Aydar Temirzhanovich ZHAKUPOV 1987	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 21/04/2021	article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO	fine of RUB 10,000	Moscow City Court 07/10/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at 9 p.m. on 26/04/2021 and released at 5 p.m. on 27/04/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
6.	8426/22 25/01/2022	Aleksey Ruslanovich MARCHUK 2002	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 02/02/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 10,000	Moscow City Court 29/07/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at 11.40 a.m. and released at 5.45 p.m. on 02/02/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
7.	9468/22 21/01/2022	Dmitriy Dmitriyevich LOTSMANOV 2002	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 21/04/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 10,000	Moscow City Court 23/07/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at 2.10 p.m. and released at 4.40 p.m. on 09/06/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
8.	10994/22 03/02/2022	Imamudin Aleksandrovich SHAKHLAMAZOV 2000	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 23/01/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 20,000	Moscow City Court 03/08/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
9.	13127/22 17/02/2022	Timur Aleksandrovich DARMAYEV 1996	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 02/02/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 15,000	Moscow City Court 19/08/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at 11.17 a.m. and released at 5.46 p.m. on 02/02/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
10.	13128/22 17/02/2022	Ilya Denisovich SKUDAR 2000	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 31/01/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 20,000	Moscow City Court 19/08/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at 3.30 p.m. and released at 11.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
11.	13129/22 17/02/2022	Raushan Kamilovich SAKHIBZADIN 1983	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 02/02/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 10,000	Moscow City Court 19/08/2021	Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	3,500
12.	13132/22 17/02/2022	Artur Viktorovich YASAK 1997	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 02/02/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 15,000	Moscow City Court 19/08/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at 11.30 a.m. and released at 7 p.m. on 02/02/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
13.	14953/22 18/02/2022	Dinislam Ilgizovich AKUNAYEV 1997	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Perm 21/04/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 10,000	Perm Regional Court 23/08/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
14.	24919/22 23/03/2022	Yevgeniy Vitalyevich CHIP 1998	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 31/01/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 15,000	Moscow City Court 29/09/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
15.	30753/22 06/03/2022	Sergey Anatolyevich PODOSENOV 1981	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally “Free Navalnyy” Moscow 31/01/2021	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 15,000	Moscow City Court 09/09/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000
16.	30754/22 06/03/2022	Andrey Nikolayevich MILYUK 1986	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally to call for fair elections St Petersburg 29/07/2021	article 20.2 § 2 of CAO	detention for 3 days	St Petersburg City Court 07/09/2021	Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	5,000
17.	30756/22 06/03/2022	Darya Rodionovna DOBROKHOTOVA 1999	Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow	Rally to call for fair elections St Petersburg 29/07/2021	article 20.2 § 2 of CAO	detention for 3 days	St Petersburg City Court 07/09/2021	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report: detained at 3.30 p.m. on 29/07/2021 and released at 2 p.m. on 30/07/2021; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	5,000
18.	45288/22 01/09/2022	Aleksandr Sergeyevich BOLDYREV 1981		Protest against the war in Ukraine Moscow 03/03/2022	article 20.2 § 5 of CAO	fine of RUB 10,000	Moscow City Court 27/06/2022	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report: detained at 7 p.m. on 03/03/2022 and released at 2 a.m. on 04/03/2022; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.	4,000

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