On 20 July 2012 the applicant participated in a demonstration in Moscow to raise public awareness of constitutional rights and freedoms. The demonstration had been approved by the authorities. During the demonstration, the applicant held a banner which read \u201cRussia without Putin\u201d. He was supported by other participants. Police officers who were present on the spot repeatedly ordered the applicant to remove the banner. As the applicant refused to comply, he was arrested and taken to the police station for the purposes of compiling an administrative offence record. During the arrest, the applicant physically resisted the police officers and pushed them away.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Semenov v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, Having regard to:<\/p>\n the application (no.\u00a039696\/12) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 14 May 2012 by a Russian national, Mr Andrey Aleksandrovich Semenov, born in 1979 and living in Dedovsk (\u201cthe applicant\u201d) who was represented before the Court by Mr Lesnyak, a lawyer practising in Moscow;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning violations of the rights to freedom of expression and assembly and the right not to be discriminated against to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d), represented by Mr\u00a0M.\u00a0Galperin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by Mr\u00a0M.\u00a0Vinogradov, his successor in that office, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 15 March 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. On 20 July 2012 the applicant participated in a demonstration in Moscow to raise public awareness of constitutional rights and freedoms. The demonstration had been approved by the authorities. During the demonstration, the applicant held a banner which read \u201cRussia without Putin\u201d. He was supported by other participants. Police officers who were present on the spot repeatedly ordered the applicant to remove the banner. As the applicant refused to comply, he was arrested and taken to the police station for the purposes of compiling an administrative offence record. During the arrest, the applicant physically resisted the police officers and pushed them away.<\/p>\n 2. On 21 July 2012 the justice of the peace of the 399th Circuit of the Zamoskvoretskiy District of Moscow found the applicant guilty under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (\u201cthe CAO\u201d) for a breach of the procedure for holding a public event. The court found that \u201cthe banner displayed [by the applicant] was contrary to the declared aim of the demonstration and was clearly political in nature\u201d. The court fined the applicant 10,000\u00a0Russian roubles (RUB) (equivalent to 121\u00a0euros (EUR)). In a separate judgment delivered on the same day, the same court established that the applicant had refused to comply with the police officers\u2019 repeated orders to remove the banner and that he had physically resisted them during the arrest, in violation of Article\u00a019.3 \u00a7\u00a01 of the CAO (failure to comply with a lawful order of an official in connection with the exercise of his duties). The court sentenced the applicant to four days\u2019 administrative detention. On 7\u00a0September and 3\u00a0October 2012 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow upheld the above judgments on appeal.<\/p>\n 3. The applicant was also administratively prosecuted and fined for taking part in the unauthorised public event in 2011. The relevant facts and complaint under Article\u00a011 of the Convention are set out in the Appendix.<\/p>\n THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 10 AND 11 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 4. The applicant complained that his arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against him had violated his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 5. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 6. The Court will examine this complaint under Article\u00a010 of the Convention, taking into account the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see F\u00e1ber v.\u00a0Hungary, no.\u00a040721\/08, \u00a7\u00a019 and \u00a7\u00a7 32-41, 24\u00a0July 2012).<\/p>\n 7. It has not been disputed by the parties that the police officers\u2019 orders to remove the banner, the applicant\u2019s arrest during the demonstration, and his subsequent convictions constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression. That interference was based on section\u00a06(3) of the Public Events Act (no.\u00a0FZ-54 of 19\u00a0June 2004), which provided that participants in a public event must comply with lawful police orders and follow the rules for the event. Even assuming that the interference pursued the legitimate aims of \u201cprevention of disorder\u201d and \u201cthe protection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d (compare F\u00e1ber, cited above, \u00a7\u00a031), it remains to be ascertained whether it was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n 8. The Court notes that during the demonstration the applicant displayed a banner which expressed his opinion on the President\u2019s policies, thereby contributing to an ongoing political debate on a matter of public concern. He acted peacefully and did not create any disturbance of public order (see Laguna Guzman v. Spain, no. 41462\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 33, 51-52, 6 October 2020, with further references, and, by contrast, \u00c9va Moln\u00e1r v. Hungary, no. 10346\/05, \u00a7\u00a041, 7 October 2008). There was no conflict between the applicant and the other participants in the demonstration because of the message he conveyed; nor was it suggested that such a conflict could emerge (see, by contrast, F\u00e1ber, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a053-58). On the contrary, the other participants in the demonstration supported the applicant (see paragraph\u00a01 above). The police intervention was therefore triggered by the contents of the banner as such and not by the applicant\u2019s provocative or otherwise offensive conduct. The domestic courts justified the applicant\u2019s administrative convictions by mere reference to the \u201cclearly political nature\u201d of the banner and its deemed contradiction with the declared aim of the demonstration (see paragraph 2 above). Their judgments, however, contained no analysis as to why they viewed the \u201cclearly political nature\u201d of the banner as problematic, given that it contained no incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221\/95 and 29225\/95, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2001\u2011IX). Furthermore, the domestic courts omitted to indicate what the alleged differences were between the declared aim of the demonstration and the applicant\u2019s banner (see Sergey Kuznetsov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a010877\/04, \u00a7\u00a045, 23 October 2008). In such circumstances, regard being had to the severity of the penalties faced by the applicant (see paragraph\u00a02 above) and the fact that he had been removed from the demonstration venue, it cannot be said that the interference with his freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society.<\/p>\n 9. There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a010 of the Convention interpreted in the light of Article 11.<\/p>\n II. Alleged VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 10. The applicant further complained under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 that he had been discriminated against on account of his political opinion.<\/p>\n 11. Having regard to its findings above, the Court does not find it necessary to continue a separate examination of this complaint (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072881\/01, \u00a7\u00a0100, ECHR\u00a02006\u2011XI).<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL\u2011ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n 12. The applicant also complained under Article 11 of the Convention about his administrative arrest and conviction for participation in the unauthorised public event on 31 August 2011 (for further details see the Appendix). This complaint, which falls under the well-established case-law of the Court, is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it discloses a violation of Article\u00a011 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Lashmankin and Others v.\u00a0Russia (nos. 57818\/09 and 14 others, \u00a7\u00a7 402-78, 7\u00a0February 2017).<\/p>\n APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage and 90,000 Russian roubles (approximately EUR\u00a01,083) in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.<\/p>\n 14. The Government contested those claims.<\/p>\n 15. The Court awards the applicant EUR\u00a09,800 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, and EUR\u00a0850 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on these amounts.<\/p>\n 16. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article\u00a010 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article\u00a014 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article\u00a011 of the Convention as regards the complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court;<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i) EUR 9,800 (nine thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii) EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n 6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 April 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Olga Chernishova \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Darian Pavli __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nCASE OF SEMENOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 39696\/12)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n5 April 2022<\/p>\n
\nPeeter Roosma,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n \u00a0<\/strong>
\nNature of the public event<\/strong>
\nLocation<\/strong>
\nDate<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong>
\nMeasures applied under the administrative offence procedure<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong>
\nFinal domestic decision in the administrative offence procedure<\/strong>
\nDate<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nComplaints<\/strong>
\nunder well-established case-law (violation)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\n Strategy-31 public event (rally in support of the freedom of peaceful assembly)
\nTriumfalnaya Square, Moscow
\n31\/08\/2011<\/td>\nAdministrative arrest and conviction under Article\u00a020.2\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Code of Administrative Offences,
\nwith the penalty of an administrative fine of RUB\u00a0500<\/td>\nThe Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
\n30\/11\/2011<\/td>\nArticle 11 \u2013 disproportionate measures taken against the applicant as a participant in a peaceful assembly, namely the applicant\u2019s administrative arrest and conviction for participating in an unauthorised public event (Lashmankin and Others v.\u00a0Russia<\/em>, nos.\u00a057818\/09 and 14\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0402-78, 7\u00a0February 2017).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n