The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, 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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Full text of the document.<\/em><\/p>\n European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Popov and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 the Protocols thereto.<\/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\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17\u00a0January 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-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 8. In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, 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 9. 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 10. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and Protocols thereto, given the relevant well\u2011established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints 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 ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 11. 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 its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and\u00a05\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 115-31, 10 April 2018, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a062-65, 8\u00a0October 2019, related to the right not be tried or punished twice in the criminal proceedings).<\/p>\n V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to examine separately the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative- offence proceedings.<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 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. 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.<\/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 the complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings and the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see appended table), admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these applications 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 the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the 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 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 23 November 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 Branko Lubarda __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\n
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 711\/18 and 9 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n23 November 2023<\/p>\n
\nBranko Lubarda, President,
\nArmen Harutyunyan,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\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