FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MAGOMEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 52356/21 and 12 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 Magomedov 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:
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 taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
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, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.
8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009).
9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. 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 as to 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 assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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.
13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols 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); 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.
14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in the paragraphs above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(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 11 of the Convention
(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)
Application no. Date of introduction | Applicant’s name Year of birth | Representative’s name and location | Name of the public event Location Date | Administrative / criminal offence | Penalty | Final domestic decision Court Name Date | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] | |
52356/21 07/09/2021 | Artur Tofikovich MAGOMEDOV 2002 | Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi | Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000 | Moscow City Court 16/04/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings | 4,000 | |
55520/21 23/10/2021 | Ilya Vasilyevich KHVATOV 2001 | Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi | Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000 | Moscow City Court 03/06/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
| 4,000 | |
55527/21 23/10/2021 | Yuriy Alekseyevich BARANOV 1965 | Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi | Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000 | Moscow City Court 27/05/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings | 4,000 | |
56271/21 25/10/2021 | Igor Yuryevich DRANDIN 1980 | Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi | Forum of Independent Deputies
Moscow
13/03/2021 | article 20.33 of CAO | fine of RUB 15,000 | Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow 25/05/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest detention on 13/03/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019) | 4,000 | |
34956/22 15/05/2022 | Maksim Vladimirovich POVARNIN 1998 | Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow | Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000 | Moscow City Court 15/11/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 10.40 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 02/02/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018); Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings | 4,000 | |
35178/22 26/06/2022 | Igor Dmitriyevich DUDAR 1998 | Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow | Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 15,000 | Moscow City Court 01/03/2022 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 1.15 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 0.59 a.m. on 01/02/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings | 4,000 | |
37088/22 17/07/2022 | Vyacheslav Alekseyevich IVANOV 1990 | Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow | Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022 | article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | detention for 12 days | St Petersburg City Court 17/03/2022 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 5 p.m. on 07/03/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 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 | |
38536/22 20/07/2022 | Tatyana Vladimirovna SIDOROVA 1997 | Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow | Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
02/04/2022 | article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | detention for 10 days | St Petersburg City Court 11/04/2022 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 3.40 p.m. on 02/04/2022 to 2.50 p.m. on 03/04/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
| 5,000 | |
38544/22 19/07/2022 | Yelena Viktorovna VISHNYAKOVA 1987 | Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow | Anti-war protest
Volgograd
06/03/2022 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Volgograd Regional Court 21/04/2022 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019) | 4,000 | |
49766/22 23/09/2022 | Natalya Viktorovna CHEPAINOVA 1995 | Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow | Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
02/03/2022 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 12,000 | St Petersburg City Court 24/05/2022 |
| 3,500 | |
50506/22 06/10/2022 | Sofiya Anastasovna DEMYANOVA 1995 | Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow | Anti-war protest
Moscow
27/02/2022 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court 07/06/2022 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 5.10 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 1.50 a.m. on 28/02/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
| 4,000 | |
19852/23 22/09/2021 | Yelena Andreyevna ZAGORULKO 1987 | Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi | Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
23/01/2021 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings | 4,000 | |
20293/23 07/09/2021 | Maksim Petrovich SIDOROVICH 1999 | Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi | Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021 | article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | detention for 7 days | Moscow City Court 06/04/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings | 5,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.