The applicants complained under Article 5 of the Convention that their arrest, transfer to the police station and subsequent detention there for several hours had been unlawful. They further complained under Article 11, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, that the authorities had failed to enable the public gathering to proceed peacefully, that their interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of peaceful assembly had been arbitrary<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Teplitskaya and Bogach v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Georgios A. Serghides, President, Having regard to:<\/p>\n the two applications 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 25 March 2015 and 19 May 2016 respectively by two Russian nationals, Ms Yana Igorevna Teplitskaya (\u201cthe first applicant\u201d) and Ms Yekaterina Anatolyevna Bogach (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d), who were both represented before the Court by Ms\u00a0K.A.\u00a0Mikhaylova, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d), represented by Mr M. Galperin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by his successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The applicants attempted to participate in a public event in support of LGBTI people that was authorised to take place on 12\u00a0October 2013 in St\u00a0Petersburg. The facts related to that event were examined by the Court in Berkman v. Russia (no. 46712\/15, 1 December 2020). The event was disrupted by violent counter\u2011demonstrators. The police present at the spot arrested a group of participants in the event, including the applicants who were then transferred to a police station and charged with disorderly misconduct (use of foul language), an offence under Article 20.1 of the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (see Berkman, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a05\u201111). On 21 November 2013 and 18\u00a0December 2013 respectively, the courts terminated the administrative proceedings against the second and first applicant for the lack of elements of an administrative offence in their acts.<\/p>\n 2. On 24 February 2014 the first applicant lodged a civil claim against police and other authorities with the Primorskiy District Court of St\u00a0Petersburg challenging the lawfulness of her arrest and detention at the police station and alleging that those infringed, among others, her rights to freedom of assembly and not to be discriminated against. On 24 April 2014 the Primorskiy District Court dismissed the first applicant\u2019s claim. The court considered that the first applicant\u2019s arrest and transfer to the police station had been lawful because she had refused to show her ID documents to the police. On 6 October 2014 the St Petersburg City Court upheld that judgment on appeal. The court stressed that there had been tension between the participants of the gathering and counter-demonstrators during the event on 12 October 2013 as well as breach of public order and that the first applicant\u2019s arrest and transfer to the police station had been justified for the purposes of facilitating subsequent administrative proceedings. The fact that these proceedings had later been terminated had not invalidated the lawfulness of the first applicant\u2019s arrest. On 6 February 2015 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the first applicant\u2019s cassation appeal against the judgment of 24\u00a0April 2014 and the appeal decision of 6 October 2014.<\/p>\n 3. On an unspecified date in 2014 the second applicant brought civil proceedings against the State. She claimed that her arrest at the venue of the gathering and transfer to the police station had been unlawful and that the police had failed to ensure public order during the gathering on 12 October 2013 and safety of its participants. She claimed non-pecuniary damage in the amount 225,000 Russian roubles (RUB; approximately 3,100 euros at the time (EUR)). On 16 December 2014 the Petrogradskiy District Court of St\u00a0Petersburg partly granted the claim. The court found that the second applicant\u2019s arrest and transfer to the police station had been unlawful and awarded her RUB\u00a02,000 (about EUR 28 at the time). The court dismissed the remainder of the second applicant\u2019s claims concerning police inaction for the lack of evidence. The second applicant\u2019s subsequent appeals against the judgment of 16\u00a0December 2014 were dismissed, with the final decision being delivered by the Supreme Court of Russia on 22 January 2016.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained under Article 5 of the Convention that their arrest, transfer to the police station and subsequent detention there for several hours had been unlawful. They further complained under Article 11, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, that the authorities had failed to enable the public gathering to proceed peacefully, that their interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of peaceful assembly had been arbitrary, and that the police arrested only the participants in the LGBTI public event and disregarded the breaches of public order by their opponents.<\/p>\n THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. Alleged VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 5 \u00a7 1, 11 and Article\u00a014 in conjunction with Article 11 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The Government submitted that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of all her complaints by lodging a cassation appeal against the judgment of 6 February 2015 by the St Petersburg City Court with the Supreme Court of Russia. They further submitted that both applicants had lost their victim status with regards to their Article 5 \u00a7\u00a01 complaint because the courts discontinued their administrative offence cases (see paragraph 1 above) and the second applicant, in addition, was awarded compensation for her unlawful detention (see paragraph 3 above).<\/p>\n 7. The Court observes that the first applicant lodged her application with the Court on 25\u00a0March 2015, that is (i) within six months after the appeal decision of 6 October 2014; and (ii) before the Court examined the amended two-layer cassation procedure in Abramyan and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos.\u00a038951\/13 and 59611\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 76-96, 12 May 2015) in May 2015 and made available that decision to the public in June 2015. Thus, the first applicant has complied with the six-month rule in view of the state of the applicable and consistent case-law at the time (see, among many others, Uzbyakov v. Russia, no. 71160\/13, \u00a7 72, 5\u00a0May 2020). She was not therefore required to lodge the first cassation appeal, which she did, however, out of prudence but to no avail. Yet it cannot be held against her \u2013 in terms of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies \u2013 that she did not lodge the second cassation appeal before the Supreme Court of Russia. In any event, the Government have not specified whether, as of June 2015, the applicable time-limit for lodging such an appeal did not expire and whether the first applicant could therefore still avail herself of the remedy in question (see\u00a0Kocherov and Sergeyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no. 16899\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 67-68, 29 March 2016). Lastly, other demonstrators did lodge similar complaints before the Supreme Court but without any success. It would be excessive to require the first applicant to do the same in the circumstances of the case (see Mariya Alekhina and Others v.\u00a0Russia, no. 38004\/12, \u00a7 247, 17 July 2018). The Government\u2019s objection to this effect should therefore be dismissed.<\/p>\n 8. As regards the Government\u2019s argument about the loss by the applicants of their victim status under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, the Court observes the following. First, the courts, when discontinuing the administrative offence cases against the applicants, had only established the lack of elements of an administrative offence in their acts, but did not acknowledge the unlawfulness of their detention (see paragraph 1 above). The Court is not therefore satisfied that, absent such acknowledgment, discontinuation of the administrative offence proceedings against the applicants constituted adequate and sufficient redress in respect of the interference with their rights under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention (see, among many others, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813\/97, \u00a7 180, ECHR 2006\u2011V, and Blyudik v. Russia, no. 46401\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 49-50, 25 June 2019). Secondly, with respect to the second applicant the Court notes that even though the domestic courts in civil proceedings found that her deprivation of liberty on 12\u00a0October 2013 had been unlawful (see paragraph 3\u00a0above), the amount of EUR 28 awarded to her in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage cannot be considered appropriate and sufficient redress for the alleged breach of the Convention (see, for example, Gremina v. Russia, no. 17054\/08, \u00a7 66, 26 May 2020, with further references). Both applicants can therefore still claim to be victims of the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 the Convention. The Government\u2019s objection to this effect should be dismissed.<\/p>\n 9. The Court finds that the applicants\u2019 complaints under Articles 5 \u00a7\u00a01, 11 and 14 in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. The Court notes that the issues arising in the present case under Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention have been already considered and ruled upon by the Court in Berkman (cited above) that concerned the same public event. Having examined all the material before it, the Court does not see any reason to resolve the present case differently. It therefore finds, for the reasons advanced in Berkman (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 50-63), that there has been, in respect of both applicants, a violation of the respondent State\u2019s positive obligations under Article 11 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, a violation of the respondent State\u2019s negative obligations under Article 11 of the Convention, and no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with negative obligations under Article 11 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 11. The applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about their unlawful arrest falls under the well-established case-law of the Court. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it discloses a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia (no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 61-65, 13\u00a0February 2018). Having reached this conclusion, in the circumstances of this case the Court does not consider necessary to examine the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning their delayed release from the police station (see Berkman, cited above, \u00a7 38, with further references).<\/p>\n APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. The applicants claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage. They did not claim costs and expenses.<\/p>\n 13. The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claim as excessive.<\/p>\n 14. Taking into account the sum already awarded by the domestic courts to the second applicant (see paragraph 3 above), the Court awards the first applicant EUR 9,750 and the second applicant EUR 9,700 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on these amounts.<\/p>\n 15. The Court 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. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of each applicant\u2019s arrest;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of the respondent State\u2019s positive obligations under Article 11 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of the respondent State\u2019s negative obligations under Article 11 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 6. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with the State\u2019s negative obligations under Article 11 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 7. Holds that there is no need to examine separately the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning their detention at the police station;<\/p>\n 8. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the first applicant EUR 9,750 (nine thousand seven hundred and fifty euros) and the second applicant EUR\u00a09,700 (nine thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, within three months, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/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 9. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 September 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 \u00a0 \u00a0Georgios A. Serghides
\nCASE OF TEPLITSKAYA AND BOGACH v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 23506\/15 and 38211\/16)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n20 September 2022<\/p>\n
\nAnja Seibert-Fohr,
\nPeeter Roosma, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n