European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KRUGLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 12283/14 and 9 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

10 November 2022

 

 

 

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

 

In the case of Kruglova and Others v. Russia,

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

Darian Pavli, President,

Andreas Zünd,

Frédéric Krenc, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,

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 applicants were represented by Mr E.A. Mezak, a human rights defender from Syktyvkar.

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

THE FACTS

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

5.  The applicants, who are members of the religious organization “Bozhya Slava” based in Syktyvkar, complained of the various restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location and/or time of public religious events. Some applicants also raised complaints about the lack of domestic remedies against the alleged violations of their freedom of assembly.

THE LAW

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained principally of the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location and/or time of public religious events. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads:

Article 11

“1.  Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly...

2.  No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”

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).

9.  In the leading case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, no. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7 February 2017, 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 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 assembly were based on legal provisions which did not meet the Convention’s “quality of law” requirements and were moreover not “necessary in a democratic society”.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of each applicant.

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

12.  In applications nos. 12283/14, 16312/14, 26499/14, 11406/15 and 14123/15, the applicants submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies against the alleged violations of their freedom of assembly (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 Lashmankin and Others, cited above, §§ 342-61, and Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 64-72, 30 April 2019.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If 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.”

14.  Having regard to the nature of the applicants’ complaints, the Court considers that the finding of a violation, triggering the respondent State’s obligation to take measures aimed at ensuring the respect of the right to freedom of assembly indicated in the judgment of Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, §§ 27-29, 27 November 2018, constitutes sufficient just satisfaction (see, for a similar approach, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia ([Committee], nos. 26624/15 and 76 others, § 18, 16January 2020), Zverev and Others v. Russia ([Committee], nos. 26363/18 and 2 others, § 15, 7 July 2022, and Taratunin and Others v. Russia ([Committee], nos. 2051/18 and 4 others, § 14, 28 July 2022).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the applications admissible;

3.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location and/or time of public events;

4.      Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5.      Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                                Darian Pavli

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

                       

 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention

(Restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events)