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 >> GOLIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 44131/18 (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms : Fifth Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 579 (27 June 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/579.html
Cite as: [2024] ECHR 579
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF GOLIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 44131/18 and 12 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 Golikov 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.
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).
- ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION
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.
- OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
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 (the CAO); 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; 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 manifestations; 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
14. Some applicants further raised additional complaints under the provisions of the Convention concerning other aspects of the administrative-offence proceedings and effects of the administrative convictions. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
- APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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,
- Decides to join the applications;
- Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications 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 there has been 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] | |
29/08/2018 | Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich GOLIKOV 1970 | Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Ani Mesropovna Agagyulyan
Moscow | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow 31/01/2021 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 15,000 | Moscow City Court 03/06/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on (1) 12/06/2017, between 2.25 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. and (2) between 3.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 and 1.30 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 - both sets of proceedings,
Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO for having participated in unauthorised public event on 12/06/2017 in Moscow and for having worn a tee-shirt with a slogan offensive to the President of the Russian Federation, penalty of RUB 15,000, final decision by the Moscow City Court on 06/03/2018.
| 4,000 | |
01/09/2021 | Maksim Yevgenyevich KLIMOV 1992 | Tkachenko Nikita Nikolayevich Belgorod | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Belgorod 23/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Belgorod 21/04/2021 | Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO | detention of 9 days
detention for 25 days | Belgorod Regional Court 01/03/2021
Belgorod Regional Court 27/04/2021 |
| 5,000 | |
16/09/2021 | Ignatiy Vitalyevich KUPTSOV 1988 | Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Tomsk 31/01/2021 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 15,000 | Tomsk Regional Court 18/03/2021 | Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO for having published on his page "VKontakte" calls for participation in a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Tomsk, penalty detention for 25 days, final decision by the Tomsk Regional Court on 04/05/2021,
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. | 5,000 | |
16/09/2021 | Angelina Nikolayevna YUGANOVA 1972 | Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow 23/01/2021 | Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO | fine of RUB 200,000 | Moscow City Court 26/04/2021 | Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
| 3,500 | |
21/09/2021 | Vsevolod Aleksandrovich ZAYTSEV 2002 | Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow 31/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow 21/04/2021 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000
detention for 20 days | Moscow City Court 23/08/2021
Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 and 25/04/2021 for 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 - both sets of proceedings. | 5,000 | |
01/10/2021 | Natalya Gennadyevna CHEKHLENKO 1963 |
| Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Blagoveshchensk 23/01/2021 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Amur Regional Court 01/04/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for 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 | |
01/10/2021 | Ilya Valeryevich AKSENOV 2001 | Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow 23/01/2021 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000 | Moscow City Court 02/04/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021, between 3.30 p.m. and 00.00,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. | 4,000 | |
11/10/2021 | Lev Markovich SHLOSBERG 1963 | Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Pskov 23/01/2021 | Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000 | Pskov Regional Court 12/04/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021 (several hours), . Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings | 4,000 | |
12/10/2021 | Anastasiya Alekseyevna SHVAREVA 1998 | Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d'Anjou | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Syktyvkar 31/01/2021 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 5,000 | Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 23/06/2021 | Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. | 3,500 | |
16/11/2021 | Olga Nikolayevna VOLKOVA 1980 | Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna Novorossiysk | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Anapa 23/01/2021 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Krasnodar Regional Court 17/05/2021 | Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
| 3,500 | |
03/12/2021 | Sergey Sergeyevich OSTRIKOV 1991 | Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich Voronezh | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh 23/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh 31/01/2021 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000 | Voronezh Regional Court 30/08/2021
Voronezh Regional Court 04/06/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report on (1) 23/01/2021 between 4.40 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. and (2) on 31/01/2021 between 12.40 p.m. and 4.15 p.m.,
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. | 4,000 | |
22/12/2021 | Aleksandr Sergeyevich KNYAZEV 1995 | Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich Voronezh | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh 31/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh 21/04/2021 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000 | Voronezh Regional Court 23/06/2021
Voronezh Regional Court 19/10/2021 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on (1) 31/01/2021, between 2.00 p.m. and 9.50 p.m. and (2) 21/04/2021, between 7.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m.,
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. | 4,000 | |
04/06/2022 | Yuliya Vyacheslavovna KUMIROVA 1996 | Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow | Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow 21/04/2021
Anti-war rally
Moscow 02/03/2022 | Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000
detention for 10 days | Moscow City Court 17/12/2021
Moscow City Court 11/03/2022 | Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report between 7.30 p.m. on 02/03/2022 and 7.30 p.m. on 04/03/2022,
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,
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] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.