{"id":21715,"date":"2023-11-23T10:19:36","date_gmt":"2023-11-23T10:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21715"},"modified":"2023-11-23T10:19:36","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T10:19:36","slug":"case-of-ooo-orion-and-others-v-russia-16154-19-and-8-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21715","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF OOO ORION AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 16154\/19 and 8 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF OOO ORION AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 16154\/19 and 8 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n23 November 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nBranko Lubarda, President,
\nArmen Harutyunyan,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

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.<\/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. 40792\/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 the administrative\u2011offence 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, 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, 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 Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 34-36, 8 October 2019.<\/p>\n

V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

12. 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

13. 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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the absence of the prosecuting party from the 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 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 the administrative-offence proceedings;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 \u00a0Branko Lubarda
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/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
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

Year of birth, where relevant<\/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\u2011established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n16154\/19<\/p>\n

12\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

OOO ORION<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 300,000<\/td>\n12\/09\/2018,<\/p>\n

Azov Town Court of the Rostov Region<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n27375\/19<\/p>\n

07\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksey Aleksandrovich KHIMCHENKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 5,000<\/td>\n06\/12\/2018,<\/p>\n

Vologda Town Court<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n43682\/19<\/p>\n

31\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksey Viktorovich KATERBUZOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nadministrative fines of RUB 75,000; RUB\u00a075,000 and RUB\u00a0100,000<\/td>\n31\/01\/2019, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court,<\/p>\n

14\/02\/2019, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court,<\/p>\n

06\/06\/2019, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n46459\/19<\/p>\n

27\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Artem Aleksandrovich LUKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 5 days<\/td>\n01\/08\/2019,<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n49801\/19<\/p>\n

14\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Pavel Pavlovich MALYSHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Aleksey Borisovich<\/p>\n

Vologin<\/p>\n

Volsk<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 30 000, suspension of the driving licence for 1\u00a0year and 9\u00a0months<\/td>\n10\/09\/2019,<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n51465\/19<\/p>\n

22\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Denis Mikhaylovich SEMENOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Aleksey Alekseyevich<\/p>\n

Yemelin<\/p>\n

Volsk<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1\u00a0year and 6 months<\/td>\n23\/05\/2019,<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n52125\/19<\/p>\n

21\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Yuryevich BEZBEKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Aleksey Borisovich<\/p>\n

Vologin<\/p>\n

Volsk<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1\u00a0year and 8\u00a0months<\/td>\n12\/09\/2019,<\/p>\n

Krasnoarmeysk Town Court of the Saratov Region<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n10657\/20<\/p>\n

18\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

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

1955<\/td>\n

Anna Borisovna<\/p>\n

Karakozova<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 20, 000<\/td>\n22\/08\/2019,<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and detention on 27\/07\/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n12071\/20<\/p>\n

25\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Yana Sergeyevna OPARINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Kulakov<\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1\u00a0year and 7\u00a0months<\/td>\n19\/11\/2019,<\/p>\n

Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk<\/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