The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Maksimov and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023,<\/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 Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/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. LOCUS STANDI<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The Court notes that one of the applicants, Mr Vladimir Vyacheslavovich Maksimov (application no. 30757\/17), died on 7 June 2021 and his son Mr Vitaliy Vladimirovitch Maksimov, born on 10 October 2006 and represented by his mother Mrs Svetlana Vladimirovna Lobanova, expressed a wish to pursue the application.<\/p>\n 7. The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case 8. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Mr Vitaliy Vladimirovitch Maksimov has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the stead of his late father. The Court will therefore continue dealing with the case at his request. For convenience, it will, however, continue to refer to the late applicant in the present judgment.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 9. The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative\u2011offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 10. The relevant principles of the Court\u2019s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a051\u201157, 20\u00a0September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirements allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence case which falls within the ambit of Article\u00a06 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article\u00a06 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0Having examined all the material submitted to it, having dismissed the Government\u2019s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Smadikov v. Russia\u00a0(dec.), no. 10810\/15, 31 January 2017) and having due regard to the issue of compliance with the six-month period under Article\u00a035 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos.\u00a06232\/20 and\u00a022394\/20, \u00a7\u00a7 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID- related extension of the period in question), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the complaints in the present case.<\/p>\n 12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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\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 and the Protocols thereto in the light of its well-established case-law (see Frumkin v.\u00a0Russia, no. 74568\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 81-142, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful deprivation of liberty, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 62-65, 8\u00a0October 2019, concerning the right not be tried or punished twice in the criminal proceedings).<\/p>\n 14. As regards other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about the administrative-offence proceedings, submitted by the applicants, the Court, having reached the conclusion about the lack of impartiality of the tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 12 above), does not consider it necessary to examine them separately.<\/p>\n V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 16. The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles\u00a034 and\u00a035 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n 17. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 18. 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 19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a024377\/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares that Mr Vitaliy Vladimirovich Maksimov has standing to pursue application no. 30757\/17 in the stead of the late applicant, Mr\u00a0Vladimir Vyacheslavovich Maksimov;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the complaints concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,\u00a0decides that it is not necessary to examine separately further complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by some applicants about the administrative\u2011offence proceedings, and dismisses the remainder of the complaints as inadmissible;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 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;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (b) that the award in respect of Mr Vladimir Vyacheslavovich Maksimov (application no. 30757\/17) should be paid to his heir, Mr Vitaliy Vladimirovich Maksimov;<\/p>\n (c) 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 7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2023, 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli _____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF MAKSIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 30757\/17 and 29 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n9 February 2023<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nIoannis Ktistakis,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd, judges,<\/p>\n
\n(see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2014) and in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant\u2019s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071\/96, ECHR 2000-XII).<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings)<\/p>\n