{"id":21087,"date":"2023-09-07T10:49:30","date_gmt":"2023-09-07T10:49:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21087"},"modified":"2023-09-07T10:49:30","modified_gmt":"2023-09-07T10:49:30","slug":"case-of-ablyakimov-and-others-v-russia-75530-17-and-9-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21087","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ABLYAKIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 75530\/17 and 9 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF ABLYAKIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 75530\/17 and 9 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 September 2023<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Ablyakimov and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, President,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc,
\nDavor Deren\u010dinovi\u0107, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 6 July 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 their administrative-offence proceedings. 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. JURISDICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.\u00a040792\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17 January 2023).<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. 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 on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. The relevant principles of the Court\u2019s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926\/08, 20 September 2016). 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

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 on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.<\/p>\n

10. 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<\/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.<\/p>\n

12. 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 Butkevich v. Russia, no.\u00a05865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a063-65, 13\u00a0February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 115-31, 10 April 2018; and Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; and Martynyuk v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a013764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38-42, 8\u00a0October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 178-88, concerning the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.<\/p>\n

13. As regards other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings, submitted by some of the applicants, the Court, having reached the conclusion about the lack of impartiality of the tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph\u00a010 above), does not consider it necessary to examine them separately.<\/p>\n

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

14. 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

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Zaytseva and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a041136\/17 and 10 others, 2 March 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants\u2019 complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares\u00a0the 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 the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and\u00a0decides\u00a0that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention raised by some applicants about the administrative-offence proceedings;<\/p>\n

4. Hold that these applications disclosed a breach of Article 6 of the Convention on the ground of 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 Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case\u2011law 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 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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 September 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 Lorraine Schembri Orland
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\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\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nPenalty<\/strong><\/td>\nDate of final domestic decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

Name of court<\/strong><\/td>\n

Other complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n75530\/17<\/p>\n

19\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Ruslan Yakubovich ABLYAKIMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 7 days<\/td>\n20\/04\/2017, Moscow City Court<\/td>\nProt. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the Code of the Administrative Offences<\/td>\n2,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n83056\/17<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Yelena Yevgenyevna CHERNETSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

Vakhitov<\/p>\n

Ilyas Salimovich<\/p>\n

Vniissok<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\n14\/06\/2017,<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n44769\/18<\/p>\n

11\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

Andrey Viktorovich<\/strong><\/p>\n

OREL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 15 days<\/td>\n14\/03\/2018, Moscow City Court<\/td>\nProt. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the Code of the Administrative Offences<\/td>\n2,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n44847\/18<\/p>\n

08\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

Oleg Yuryevich<\/strong><\/p>\n

MAZIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1969<\/td>\n

Vologin<\/p>\n

Aleksey Borisovich<\/p>\n

Volsk<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB\u00a030,000,<\/p>\n

suspension of the driving licence<\/td>\n

06\/09\/2018,<\/p>\n

Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n45836\/18<\/p>\n

19\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

Anzhela Valeryevna DYATLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB\u00a030,000, suspension of the driving licence<\/td>\n22\/03\/2018, Orenburgskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n49737\/18<\/p>\n

13\/10\/2018<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Vladimirovich ISAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

Vologin<\/p>\n

Aleksey Borisovich<\/p>\n

Volsk<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB\u00a030,000,<\/p>\n

suspension of the driving licence<\/td>\n

25\/09\/2018, Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n57712\/18<\/p>\n

12\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Vasiliy Alekseyevich ZRYUYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\n14\/06\/2018, Voronezh Regional Court<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n56128\/22<\/p>\n

19\/11\/2022<\/td>\n

Olga Viktorovna ANDREYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\n19\/07\/2022, Moscow City Court<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n325\/23<\/p>\n

02\/12\/2022<\/td>\n

Rim Faridovich GUBAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Filatchev<\/p>\n

Oleg Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\n03\/08\/2022, Moscow City Court<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation<\/p>\n

of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 7.40 p.m. on 27\/02\/2022 to 01.00\u00a0a.m. on 28\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n906\/23<\/p>\n

01\/11\/2022<\/td>\n

Konstantin Vladimirovich SIDELNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Shindyapin<\/p>\n

Arkadiy Vitalyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\n15\/08\/2022, Moscow City Court<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n