{"id":21721,"date":"2023-11-23T10:29:37","date_gmt":"2023-11-23T10:29:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21721"},"modified":"2023-11-23T10:29:37","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T10:29:37","slug":"case-of-buzin-and-others-v-russia-65015-19-and-20-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21721","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF BUZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 65015\/19 and 20 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF BUZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 65015\/19 and 20 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 Buzin 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 and 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. 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 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 and the Protocols thereto, 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 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; Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a034-36, 8 October 2019; and Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588\/12 and 3 others, \u00a7\u00a7 72-74 and 81-82, 5 April 2022, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 179-91, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38-42, 8\u00a0October 2019, concerning the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal in the administrative-offence proceedings.<\/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 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

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 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 the 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 Branko Lubarda
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\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\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 per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n65015\/19<\/p>\n

05\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

Konstantin Andreyevich<\/strong><\/p>\n

BUZIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\n28\/08\/2019, Moscow City Court<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n27436\/21<\/p>\n

27\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Denis Vladimirovich VASILENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Aleksey Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Vlasov<\/p>\n

Tula<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 3 days<\/p>\n

administrative detention of 8\u00a0days<\/td>\n

27\/10\/2020,<\/p>\n

Tula Regional Court<\/p>\n

20\/10\/2021,<\/p>\n

Tula Regional Court<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n29209\/21<\/p>\n

17\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

German Aleksandrovich KOBYCHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Konstantin Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Markin<\/p>\n

Velikiy Novgorod<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 5,000<\/td>\n19\/11\/2020, Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n1430\/22<\/p>\n

14\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich TOPOROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nfine of RUB 30,000<\/p>\n

suspension of the driving licence for 1\u00a0year and 6 months<\/td>\n

13\/09\/2021, Isakogorskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n3175\/22<\/p>\n

24\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Vladimirovich GORLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

Valeriy Viktorovich<\/p>\n

Kanayev<\/p>\n

Diveyevo<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1\u00a0year and 6\u00a0months<\/td>\n27\/07\/2021, Ardatovskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n3507\/22<\/p>\n

22\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Andrey Yuryevich PODKIDYSHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/td>\n

Andrey Yevgenyevcich<\/p>\n

Shchukin<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Tagil<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 2,000,<\/p>\n

administrative detention of 12 days<\/td>\n

25\/11\/2021, Sverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

03\/03\/2022, Sverdlovsk Regional Court<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty \u2013 arrest and escorting to the police station on 18\/11\/2021, detention in excess of 3 hours<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n4501\/22<\/p>\n

10\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Olegovich MOREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\n31\/08\/2021, Voronezh Regional Court<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest and detention on 21\/04\/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n16125\/22<\/p>\n

26\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Vasiliy Aleksandrovich KOCHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Valeriy Viktorovich<\/p>\n

Kanayev<\/p>\n

Diveyevo<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 30,000,<\/p>\n

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

15\/02\/2022, Diveyevskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n24461\/22<\/p>\n

05\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Ruslan Gennadyevich OVSYANNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nfine of RUB 1,000<\/td>\n02\/11\/2021,<\/p>\n

Saratov Regional Court<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n29895\/22<\/p>\n

06\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Sergey Vladimirovich SHESHENIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Valeriy Viktorovich<\/p>\n

Kanayev<\/p>\n

Diveyevo<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 30,000<\/p>\n

suspension of driving licence for<\/p>\n

1 year and<\/p>\n

6 months<\/td>\n

26\/04\/2022, Diveyevskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n30994\/22<\/p>\n

08\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Anatolyevich PRIKHOZHDENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Timofey Borisovich<\/p>\n

Ushakov<\/p>\n

Kokoshkino<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 30,000,<\/p>\n

suspension of the driving licence for<\/p>\n

1 year and 6 months<\/td>\n

09\/12\/2021, Moscow City Court<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n32764\/22<\/p>\n

11\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Anatolyevich RYBKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

Aleksey Borisovich<\/p>\n

Vologin<\/p>\n

Volsk<\/td>\n

suspension of the driving licence for<\/p>\n

1 year<\/td>\n

21\/01\/2022, Shchelkovskiy District Court of the Moscow Region<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n34291\/22<\/p>\n

30\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich AKIMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Ushakov<\/p>\n

Kokoshkno<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 30,000,<\/p>\n

suspension of the driving licence for<\/p>\n

1 year<\/td>\n

02\/03\/2022, Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n36331\/22<\/p>\n

18\/07\/2022<\/td>\n

Grigoriy Vladimirovich ALEYNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Anna Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Bochilo<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\n21\/03\/2022, St\u00a0Petersburg City Court<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest and detention on 27\/02\/2022 in excess 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of the administrative offence, the applicant was released on the following day;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 16\/03\/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO).<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n38591\/22<\/p>\n

07\/07\/2022<\/td>\n

Mariya Vladimirovna KRIVENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Irina Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Gak<\/p>\n

Rostov-on-Don<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\n11\/03\/2022,<\/p>\n

Rostov Regional Court<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – arrest and detention on 06\/03\/2022 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, the applicant was released on the following day,<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 07\/03\/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n38786\/22<\/p>\n

25\/07\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GONCHARUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nfine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for<\/p>\n

1 year and<\/p>\n

6 months<\/td>\n

25\/01\/2022, Bureyskiy District Court of the Amur Region<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n39360\/22<\/p>\n

22\/07\/2022<\/td>\n

Viktor Yevgenyevich YASINOVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Aleksey Borisovich<\/p>\n

Vologin<\/p>\n

Volsk<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 30,000,<\/p>\n

suspension of the driving licence for<\/p>\n

1 year and<\/p>\n

8 months<\/td>\n

19\/05\/2022, Bazarno-Karabulakskiy District Court of the Saratov Region<\/td>\n<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n39365\/22<\/p>\n

22\/07\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1983<\/td>\n

Aleksey Borisovich<\/p>\n

Vologin<\/p>\n

Volsk<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 30,000,<\/p>\n

suspension of the driving licence for<\/p>\n

1 year and<\/p>\n

7 months<\/td>\n

18\/04\/2022,<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n45216\/22<\/p>\n

05\/09\/2022<\/td>\n

Anastasiya Yevgenyevna AGEYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Vladimir Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Nemanov<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 15 days<\/td>\n05\/05\/2022,<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and detention on 29-30\/04\/2022 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n50884\/22<\/p>\n

15\/10\/2022<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich BOBOSHKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nfine of RUB 30,000,<\/p>\n

suspension of the driving licence for<\/p>\n

1 year and<\/p>\n

7 months<\/td>\n

12\/07\/2022,<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n1,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n1412\/23<\/p>\n

22\/12\/2022<\/td>\n

Nikolay Aleksandrovich TISHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Aleksey Borisovich<\/p>\n

Vologin<\/p>\n

Volsk<\/td>\n

fine of RUB, 30,000, suspension of the driving license for<\/p>\n

1 year and<\/p>\n

6 months<\/td>\n

15\/09\/2022, Military Court of the Central Circuit<\/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