The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants and organisers of public assemblies.<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Gukovskiy and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 2 March 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\u00a0Government\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 disproportionate measures taken against them as participants and organisers of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a011 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants and an organiser (application no.\u00a039118\/12) 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.<\/p>\n 7. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevi\u010dius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.\u00a037553\/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552\/01, ECHR\u00a02006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482\/06, 31\u00a0March 2009).<\/p>\n 8. 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.<\/p>\n 9. 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\u2019 freedom of assembly were not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. 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\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 Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10\u00a0April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to administrative escorting to and\/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a058-85, 20\u00a0September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 21-28, 8 October 2019, related to the exercise of the right to examine witnesses in those proceedings.<\/p>\n IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, there is no need to examine (the other aspects of) the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 13. Furthermore, some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. 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 16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], no.\u00a025809\/17 and 14 others, \u00a7 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds 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 the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles\u00a05 and 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention;<\/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<\/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 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 applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 March 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 L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov _________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF GUKOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 39118\/12 and 19 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n23 March 2023<\/p>\n
\nL\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov, President,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107,
\nErik Wennerstr\u00f6m, judges,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
\n(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)<\/p>\n