Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> DMITRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 83641/17 (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association : Fifth Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 576 (27 June 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/576.html
Cite as: [2024] ECHR 576
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF DMITRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 83641/17 and 10 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dmitriyeva and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Stephane Pisani, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 June 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 and its Protocols.
THE LAW
- 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.
- 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, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023).
- standing of the applicant's husband to pursue application No. 83641/17
7. Following Ms Dmitriyeva's demise in 2019, her husband, Mr Aleksandr Valeryevich Dmitriyev, expressed a wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in relation to application no. 83641/17 lodged by his late wife in 2017.
8. The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court's assessment of the person's standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant's death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII).
9. In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Mr Dmitriyev has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant's stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at his request. For practical reasons, Ms Elvira Dmitriyeva will continue to be referred to as "the applicant" in this judgment.
- ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION
10. 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.
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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".
14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
- OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
15. 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.
16. 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 (the CAO); Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 114-42, 9 April 2019, as regards the conditions of transport of detainees; Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 104-05 and 114, 5 July 2016, and, mutatis mutandis, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards the absence of relevant and sufficient reasons for the house arrest of an organiser of a public assembly; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo demonstrations; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in 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.
- REMAINING COMPLAINTS
17. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings and restrictions on freedom of expression. In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
- APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. 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,
- Decides to join the applications;
- Declares that Mr Dmitriyev (application no. 83641/17) has standing to pursue the application in the late applicant's stead;
- Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants' complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
- Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention 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 raised by the applicants under the Convention;
- Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
- 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);
- 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 27 June 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] | |
26/11/2017 | Elvira Rashitovna DMITRIYEVA 1979 Deceased in 2019
Heir: A.V. Dmitriyev
| Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan | Rally against the retirement age hike
Kazan 09/09/2018 | article 20.2 § 2 of CAO | detention for 7 days | Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 14/09/2018 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report (1) from 11.30 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. on 23/08/2017, and (2) from 10.50 a.m. until 6.30 p.m. on 10/09/2018;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Articles 20.2 § 2 and 20.2 § 8 of CAO (final decisions taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 07/09/2017, 14/09/2018 and 28/11/2018 respectively);
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - (1) political rally accompanied by spreading leaflets issued by Mr Navalnyy's Headquarters in Kazan on 09/08/2017, Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 07/09/2017; (2) rally against retirement age hike on 09/09/2018 in Kazan, Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, fine of RUB 75,000, final decision by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 28/11/2018;
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 (in relation to the administrative-offence proceedings which ended with the final decisions taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 07/09/2017 and 14/09/2018 respectively). | 6,000 | |
31/07/2018 | Kira Aleksandrovna YARMYSH 1989 |
| Political rally
Moscow 05/05/2018 | article 20.2 § 8 of CAO | detention for 25 days | Moscow City Court 31/05/2018 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report (1) from 4.50 p.m. on 30/01/2018 until 31/01/2018, when the applicant was taken to the court, (2) from 11 p.m. on 21/01/2021 until 22/01/2021, when the applicant was taken to the court, and (3) from 10.39 a.m. until the court hearing on 21/04/2021;
Art. 5 (3) - lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention - house arrest from 01/02/2021 until 16/08/2021, Basmannyy District Court, defects: collective decisions; failure to assess the applicant's personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; placement under house arrest for non-violent crime; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO and in all three sets of proceedings under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO (final decisions taken on 02/02/2018, 22/03/2021, and 15/07/2021 respectively);
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - (1) call to participate in the Voters' strike on 28/01/2018 in Moscow posted on YouTube, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 5 days, final decision by the Moscow City Court on 02/02/2018; (2) rally "Free Navalnyy" on 23/01/2021 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 9 days, final decision by the Moscow City Court on 22/03/2021, (3) rally "Free Navalnyy" on 21/04/2021 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision by the Moscow City Court on 15/07/2021. | 6,000 | |
23/01/2019 | Ivan Dmitriyevich GUBANOV 1998 | Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg | Rally against retirement age hike
St Petersburg 09/09/2018 | article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | St Petersburg City Court 08/11/2018 | Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of transfer in a police van on 09/09/2018-10/09/2018 for 9 hours: no access to toilet during transfer and no access to water, no meals;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.15 p.m. on 09/09/2018 until 3 p.m. on 11/09/2018;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. | 5,000 | |
23/01/2019 | Andrey Vasilyevich ALYUSHENKO 1998 | Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg | Rally against retirement age hike
St Petersburg 09/09/2018 | article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | St Petersburg City Court 08/11/2018 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4 p.m. on 09/09/2018 until 3 p.m. on 11/09/2018;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. | 4,000 | |
30/08/2021 | Roksana Filippovna GALIAKBEROVA 1993 | Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Kazan 21/04/2021 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 26/05/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report (1) from 7.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 5.15 p.m. on 22/04/2021, and (2) from 10.10 p.m. on 17/09/2021 until 2.45 p.m. on 18/09/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.1 § 1 of the CAO (final decision by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic on 20/10/2021). | 4,000 | |
30/08/2021 | Anastasiya Vladimirovna NEKHAYEVA 1976 | Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Kaliningrad 31/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Kaliningrad 23/01/2021
Anti-war protest
Kaliningrad 24/02/2022 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000
fine of RUB 10,000
detention for 25 days | Kaliningrad Regional Court 23/03/2021
Kaliningrad Regional Court 15/06/2021
Kaliningrad Regional Court 08/04/2022 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (1) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.30 p.m. until 4.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021; (2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 6.45 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 3.01 a.m. on 22/04/2021; and (3) from 6.20 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 10 a.m. on 26/02/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (final decisions taken by the Kaliningrad Regional Court on 16/03/2021, 30/04/2021 and 25/05/2021 respectively);
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Kaliningrad, Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, detention for 20 days, final decision by the Kaliningrad Regional Court on 30/04/2021;
Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - (1) solo demonstration in support of A. Navalnyy on 21/08/2020 in Kaliningrad, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (rotation, 5 participants), fine of RUB 15,000, final decision on 16/03/2021, by the Kaliningrad Regional Court; (2) solo demonstration against criminal prosecution of S. Furgal on 15/08/2020 in Kaliningrad, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision by the Kaliningrad Regional Court on 25/05/2021;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 26/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. | 5,000 | |
01/09/2021 | Aleksey Arkadyevich LUKYANOV 1987 | Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Saransk 31/01/2021 | article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic 15/03/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 10.15 a.m. on 01/02/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO (final decisions taken by the Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic on 15/03/2021 and 22/03/2021 respectively).
| 4,000 | |
04/09/2021 | Arseniy Sergeyevich NECHAYEV 1998 | Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow 23/01/2021
Anti-war protest
Moscow 06/03/2022 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000
detention for 5 days | Moscow City Court 07/06/2021
Moscow City Court 24/07/2022 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (1) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021, (2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12.50 p.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of 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 | |
01/12/2021 | Artur Ildarovich GIMATDINOV 1986 | Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan | Anti-war protest
Kazan 06/03/2022 | article 20.2 § 8 of CAO | detention for 10 days | Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 10/03/2022 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report (1) from 6.37 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 3 p.m. on 22/04/2021, and (2) from 4.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until the court hearing on 08/03/2022;
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - conviction for making calls to participate in the rally "Free Navalnyy" on 21/04/2021 in Kazan under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 8 days, final decision by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 02/06/2021;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. | 5,000 | |
14/02/2022 | Anton Viktorovich TIMOFEYEV 1978 | Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Tomsk 31/01/2021 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Tomsk Regional Court 20/08/2021 | Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. | 3,500 | |
11/09/2023 | Dmitriy Nikolayevich LEN 1961 |
| Rally in support of free media
Moscow 29/08/2021 | article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court 01/06/2023 |
| 3,500 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.