FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF TYURIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 795/20 and 17 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

12 September 2024

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Tyurin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 María Elósegui, President,
 Kateřina Šimáčková,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 11 July 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

  1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

  1. Jurisdiction

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, §§ 6873, 17 January 2023).

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

7.  The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016).

8.  In the leading case of Novikova and Others (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 432-42, 7 February 2017; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023, and Ibragimova v. Russia, no. 68537/13, §§ 28-41, 30 August 2022).

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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

  1. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  The 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 35 § 3 (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, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO); Frumkin v. Russia, no.74568/12, 5 January 2016, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.

  1. Remaining complaints

12.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its caselaw (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

  1. Decides to join the applications;
  2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
  3. Declares the complaints under Article 10 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants;
  4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;
  5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and/or its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the wellestablished case-law of the Court (see appended table);
  6. Holds

(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;

(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

 


APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

 

Representative’s name and location

Location

Date

Purpose of the demonstration

Administrative charges

Penalty

Final domestic decision

Date

Name of the court

Other relevant information

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros)[1]

  1.    

795/20

18/12/2019

Artem Dmitriyevich TYURIN

2000

 

Arshinova Valeriya Aleksandrovna

Moscow

Moscow

02/08/2019

Support of Ye. Zhukov

 

 

article 20.2 § 2 of CAO

administrative detention of 8 days

Moscow City Court

26/08/2019

 

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,

 

 Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO

5,000

  1.    

10130/20

13/02/2020

Yulian Sergeyevich LASHKIN

1996

 

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Moscow

24/07/2019

Support of LGBT community after a murder of an LGBT activist

 

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow Regional Court

20/09/2019

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 24/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.    

55368/20

21/11/2020

Yekaterina Vladimirovna KORCHINSKAYA

1999

 

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich

St Petersburg

Vladivostok

16/06/2020

Support of eco-activists

 

article 20.2 § 1 of CAO

 administrative fine of RUB 10,000

Primorye Regional Court

08/09/2020

ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of a court building

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 16/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.    

2962/21

22/12/2020

Gleb Vladimirovich SOKOLOV

1997

 

Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich

Moscow

Moscow, 09/06/2020, Support of arrested activists D. Ivanov and E. Yunusov

article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 15 days

22/06/2020, Moscow City Court

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,

 

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO

5,000

  1.    

13372/21

10/03/2021

Timur Arturovich TUKHVATULLIN

2001

 

Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich

Kazan

Kazan

21/08/2020

 Support of A. Navalnyy

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

community service of 30 hours

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

30/09/2020

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention:

(1) on 21/08/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence, and

(2) between 2.30 p.m. of 23/01/2021 and 25/01/2021, as administrative suspect,

 

Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally in support of A. Navalnyy, 23/01/2021, Kazan – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment: 14/04/2021, Supreme Court of Republic of Tatarstan.

4,000

  1.    

20673/21

25/03/2021

Sergey Andreyevich DESNITSKIY

1999

 

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Moscow

31/05/2020

Protest against use of force against lawyers in Kabardino-Balkaria and other regions

 

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

14/10/2020

rotation - event classified as assembly post facto

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 31/05/2020 as an administrative suspect (the administrative offence record only compiled on 04/06/2020),

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.    

21974/21

07/04/2021

Natalya Andreyevna BARANOVA

1999

 

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Moscow

22/03/2020

Protest against politics of President Putin

 

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

28/10/2020

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

3,500

  1.    

23460/21

13/04/2021

Nikita Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV

2000

 

Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich

Moscow

Moscow

09/06/2020

Support of arrested protest activists D. Ivanov and E. Yunusov

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

14/10/2020

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings -

3,500

  1.    

24181/21

16/04/2021

Mariya Sergeyevna CHERNYKH

1987

 

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Moscow, 07/07/2020, Support of journalist I. Safonov

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

22/10/2020

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

 

 

3,500

  1.  

42995/21

10/08/2021

Raisa Vladimirovna MOROZOVA

1954

 

Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich

Chelyabinsk

Chelyabinsk

24/12/2020

Support of A. Navalnyy

 

article 20.1 § 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 500

Chelyabinsk Regional Court

10/02/2021

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

3,500

  1.  

52725/21

15/10/2021

Daniil Enverovich ROZOVSKIY

1997

 

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Moscow

23/01/2021

Support of A. Navalnyy

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

16/04/2021

 

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.  

30738/22

07/06/2022

Svetlana Vasilyevna NAKHIMOVICH

1948

 

Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich

Velikiy Novgorod

Novgorod

03/03/2022

Anti-war protest

article 20.2 § 2 of CAO

administrative fine of RUB 20,000

Novgorod Regional Court

20/04/2022

distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; failure to draw up an escort record,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.  

31741/22

07/06/2022

Yelena Vladimirovna PAVLOVA

1946

 

Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich

Velikiy Novgorod

Novgorod

03/03/2022

Anti-war protest

article 20.2 § 2 of CAO

administrative fine of RUB 20,000

Novgorod Regional Court

19/04/2022

distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.  

47795/22

15/09/2022

Ilya Khaimovich MYASKOVSKIY

1971

 

Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich

Nizhniy Novgorod

Nizhniy Novgorod

19/03/2022

Anti-war protest

 

(the applicant was taking pictures of another person who staged an anti-war solo demonstration)

 

 

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

06/07/2022

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

 

 

4,000

  1.  

52475/22

20/10/2022

Yelizaveta Andreyevna NEMZER

1996

 

 

 

Moscow

24/02/2022

Anti-war protest

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

27/07/2022

 

 

distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 24/02/2022 and (ii) on 02/03/2022, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up the offence record,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings,

 

Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Rally against the war in Ukraine, 02/03/2022, Moscow – arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, final judgment of 23/06/2022 by the Moscow City Court

4,000

  1.  

57638/22

19/11/2022

Maria Nikolayevna PETROVSKAYA

1985

 

Tyurina Kristina Olegovna

Nizhniy Novgorod

Nizhniy Novgorod

19/03/2022

Anti-war protest

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court

20/07/2022

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, applicant taken to a police station on 19/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.  

3804/23

25/12/2022

Aleksandr Nikolayevich GORELOV

1984

 

Tyurina Kristina Olegovna

Nizhniy Novgorod

Reshetikha

Nizhniy Novgorod Region

06/03/2022

Anti-war protest

 

(the applicant parked his car with anti-war posters on it in a town centre and left the venue)

 

 

article 20.2 § 2 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

25/08/2022

 

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 07/07/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence in respect of the events of 06/03/2022,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.  

12794/23

24/10/2022

Polina Aleksandrovna LABINSKAYA

1982

 

 

 

Moscow

07/03/2022

Anti-war protest

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

 administrative fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

01/07/2022

ban on public events at certain locations - the State Duma

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

 

 


[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.