The applicants, who are members of the religious organization \u201cBozhya Slava\u201d based in Syktyvkar, complained of the various restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location and\/or time of public religious events.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Kruglova and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The applicants were represented by Mr E.A. Mezak, a human rights defender from Syktyvkar.<\/p>\n 3. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicants, who are members of the religious organization \u201cBozhya Slava\u201d based in Syktyvkar, complained of the various restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location and\/or time of public religious events. Some applicants also raised complaints about the lack of domestic remedies against the alleged violations of their freedom of assembly.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. 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 VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a011 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The applicants complained principally of the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location and\/or time of public religious events. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads:<\/p>\n Article\u00a011<\/p>\n \u201c1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly…<\/p>\n 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.\u201d<\/p>\n 8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevi\u010diusand Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.\u00a037553\/05, ECHR 2015, with further references).<\/p>\n 9. In the leading case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, no. 57818\/09 and 14 others, \u00a7\u00a7 402-78, 7 February 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 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 on 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\u2019 freedom of assembly were based on legal provisions which did not meet the Convention\u2019s \u201cquality of law\u201d requirements and were moreover not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of each applicant.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. In applications nos.\u00a012283\/14, 16312\/14, 26499\/14, 11406\/15 and 14123\/15, the applicants submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies against the alleged violations of their freedom of assembly (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 Lashmankin and Others,cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 342-61, and Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310\/16 and 59663\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 64-72, 30 April 2019.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 14. Having regard to the nature of the applicants\u2019 complaints, the Court considers that the finding of a violation, triggering the respondent State\u2019s obligation to take measures aimed at ensuring the respect of the right to freedom of assembly indicated in the judgment of Alekseyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 14988\/09 and 50 others, \u00a7\u00a7 27-29, 27 November 2018, constitutes sufficient just satisfaction (see, for a similar approach, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia ([Committee], nos. 26624\/15 and 76 others, \u00a7 18, 16January 2020), Zverev and Others v. Russia ([Committee], nos. 26363\/18 and 2 others, \u00a7 15, 7 July 2022, and Taratunin and Others v. Russia ([Committee], nos. 2051\/18 and 4 others, \u00a7 14, 28 July 2022).<\/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 these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention concerning the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location and\/or time of public events;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Darian Pavli _______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong> Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of the public event planned<\/strong><\/td>\n Date<\/strong><\/p>\n Name of the court<\/strong><\/td>\n 18\/01\/2014<\/td>\n 1984<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/td>\n 15\/09\/2013<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n 12\/02\/2014<\/p>\n (4 applicants)<\/td>\n 1982<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Viktor Yevgenyevich DUDIN<\/strong><\/p>\n 1957<\/td>\n 23\/08\/2013<\/p>\n Sport stadiumSyktyvkar<\/p>\n 13\/09\/2013<\/td>\n Proposal to change the location<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n Notification procedure: 26\/12\/2013<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n 17\/02\/2014<\/p>\n (3 applicants)<\/td>\n 1984<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Dmitriy Sergeyevich PATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1986<\/td>\n 27\/08\/2013<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n 17\/02\/2014<\/p>\n (5 applicants)<\/td>\n 1982<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Dmitriy Sergeyevich PATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1986<\/p>\n Pavel Aleksandrovich KOZLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1976<\/td>\n 14\/06\/2013<\/p>\n Football stadium Syktyvkar<\/p>\n 30\/08\/2013<\/td>\n Proposal to change the location<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n Notification procedure:14\/11\/2013<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n 03\/02\/2014<\/p>\n (5 applicants)<\/td>\n 1984<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Dmitriy Sergeyevich PATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1986<\/p>\n Yekaterina Sergeyevna CHICHEROVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1982<\/td>\n Syktyvkar<\/p>\n Several manifestations between 29\/08\/2013<\/p>\n and<\/p>\n 27\/10\/2013<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n Supreme Court of Komi Republic;<\/p>\n 16\/01\/2014<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n 10\/03\/2014<\/p>\n (5 applicants)<\/td>\n 1986<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Viktor Yevgenyevich DUDIN<\/strong><\/p>\n 1957<\/p>\n Pavel Aleksandrovich KOZLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1976<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Several manifestations between 04\/06\/2013 and 27\/10\/2013<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the<\/p>\n Komi Republic,<\/p>\n 23\/12\/2013<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the<\/p>\n Komi Republic<\/td>\n 13\/03\/2014<\/p>\n (4 applicants)<\/td>\n 1982<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Dmitriy Sergeyevich PATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1986<\/td>\n Syktyvkar<\/p>\n 21\/09\/2013<\/p>\n Orbitamicrodistrict<\/p>\n Syktyvkar<\/p>\n 27\/10\/2013<\/td>\n Proposal to change the location<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n Notification procedure: 17\/02\/2014<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n 16\/12\/2013<\/p>\n (14 applicants)<\/td>\n 1984<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Natalya Alekseyevna BOYARINTSEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1975<\/p>\n Alena Aleksandrovna GALINSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1982<\/p>\n Tatyana Andreyevna KOROBOVSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Dmitriy Sergeyevich PATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1986<\/p>\n Viktor Yevgenyevich DUDIN<\/strong><\/p>\n 1957<\/p>\n Pavel Aleksandrovich KOZLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1976<\/p>\n Yelena Igorevna NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1989<\/p>\n Valeriy Nikolayevich ZHIVOTKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1951<\/p>\n Galina Alekseyevna ZHIVOTKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1951<\/p>\n Olga Vasilyevna DUDINA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1960<\/p>\n Yevgeniya<\/strong><\/p>\n Vladimirovna MAGAYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1985<\/p>\n Inna Valeryevna YERMOLAYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1975<\/td>\n Syktyvkar Several manifestations between 25\/06\/2013 and<\/p>\n 03\/07\/2013<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n 30\/01\/2015<\/p>\n (3 applicants)<\/td>\n 1989<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/td>\n Syktyvkar<\/p>\n Several manifestations between 02\/08\/2014 and<\/p>\n 12\/08\/2014<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n 11\/03\/2015<\/p>\n (4 applicants)<\/td>\n 1986<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1984<\/p>\n Yelena Igorevna NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1989<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Syktyvkar<\/p>\n 19\/09\/2014<\/p>\n Site near football stadium<\/p>\n Syktyvkar<\/p>\n 20\/09\/2014<\/p>\n Site near bus stop<\/p>\n Syktyvkar<\/p>\n 21\/09\/2014<\/p>\n Site near a shop<\/p>\n Syktyvkar<\/p>\n 23\/09\/2014<\/td>\n Proposal to change the location<\/p>\n Proposal to change the location<\/p>\n Proposal to change the location<\/td>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n Notification procedure: 20\/11\/2014<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n Notification procedure: 20\/11\/2014<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n Notification procedure: 20\/11\/2014<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/td>\n
\nCASE OF KRUGLOVA AND OTHERSv. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 12283\/14 and 9 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 November 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
\n(Restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Location<\/strong><\/p>\n Restrictions applied<\/strong><\/td>\n Final domestic decision (type of procedure)<\/strong><\/p>\n Other complaints under well\u2011established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 12283\/14<\/p>\n Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Stefanovskaya Square Syktyvkar<\/p>\n Proposal to change the location, general prohibition on holding public events at certain locations (near the court buildings)<\/td>\n Notification procedure: 26\/12\/2013<\/p>\n Art. 13 \u2013 lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in relation to Article 11 complaint<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 16312\/14<\/p>\n Yekaterina Sergeyevna CHICHEROVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Sport stadiumSyktyvkar<\/p>\n Proposal to change the location<\/p>\n Notification procedure: 16\/01\/2014<\/p>\n Art. 13 \u2013 lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in relation to Article 11 complaint<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 17858\/14<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Chapygina SquareSyktyvkar<\/p>\n Proposal to change the location<\/td>\n Notification procedure: 31\/10\/2013<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 17861\/14<\/p>\n Yekaterina Sergeyevna CHICHEROVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Football stadium Syktyvkar<\/p>\n Proposal to change the location<\/p>\n Notification procedure:21\/11\/2013<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 21382\/14<\/p>\n Tatyana Andreyevna KOROBOVSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n Park near Stefanovskaya Square<\/p>\n Proposals to change the locations<\/p>\n Notification procedure: 26\/12\/2013<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 26496\/14<\/p>\n Dmitriy Sergeyevich PATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Several locations Syktyvkar<\/p>\n Proposals to change the locations<\/td>\n Notification procedure: 02\/12\/2013<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 26499\/14<\/p>\n Yekaterina Sergeyevna CHICHEROVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Orbitamicrodistrict<\/p>\n Proposal to change the location<\/p>\n Notification procedure: 17\/02\/2014<\/p>\n Art. 13 \u2013 lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in relation to Article 11 complaint<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 2371\/15<\/p>\n Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Stefanovskaya square<\/p>\n Proposals to change the location<\/td>\n Notification procedure: 21\/11\/2013<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n 11406\/15<\/p>\n Yelena Igorevna NITCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Several locations<\/p>\n Proposals to change the locations<\/td>\n Notification procedure: 13\/10\/2014<\/p>\n Art. 13 \u2013 lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in relation to Article 11 complaint<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 10.<\/td>\n 14123\/15<\/p>\n Dmitriy Sergeyevich PATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Chapygina Square<\/p>\n Proposal to change the location<\/p>\n Notification procedure: 20\/11\/2014<\/p>\n Art. 13 \u2013 lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in relation to Article 11 complaint<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n