AGABEKYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 22474/21 (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association : Fourth Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 408 (14 May 2024)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> AGABEKYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 22474/21 (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association : Fourth Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 408 (14 May 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/408.html
Cite as: [2024] ECHR 408

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF AGABEKYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 22474/21 and 17 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

14 May 2024

 

 

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

 


In the case of Agabekyan and Others v. Russia,

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

 Branko Lubarda, President,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 11 April 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 taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol.

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, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023).

  1. 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.

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


12.  The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocol, 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 Protocol in the light of its findings in 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); 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; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant's personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in administrative offence proceedings in order to identify, locate and arrest him; 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


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 paragraphs above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

  1. 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,

  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 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 under Article 6 of the Convention;
  4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
  5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocol thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established 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 14 May 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda

 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)

No.

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]

  1.    

22474/21

05/04/2021

Narek Gagikovich AGABEKYAN

1995

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Tomsk

 

31/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Tomsk Regional Court

11/03/2021

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Tomsk Regional Court, 11/03/2021

3,500

  1.    

22582/21

02/04/2021

Pavel Dmitriyevich BAGDALOV

1998

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Tomsk

 

31/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Tomsk Regional Court

05/03/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Detention from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. on 31/01/2021 for drawing up an administrative offence record; 3 hours later the applicant was brought to the police station, where he was detained from 6 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. waiting for a court hearing, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Tomsk Regional Court, 05/03/2021

4,000

  1.    

45286/21

23/08/2021

Olga Vadimovna VASILYEVA

1950

Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich

Stavropol

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Pyatigorsk

31/01/2021

article 20.2.2.

§ 1 of CAO

detention for 1 day

Stavropol Regional Court

24/03/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 2 p.m. on 01/02/2021 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 24/03/2021

5,000

  1.    

46104/21

10/09/2021

Nikita Aleksandrovich BAZHIN

1993

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Moscow

 

23/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

22/03/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 22/03/2021

4,000

  1.    

46129/21

31/08/2021

Andrey Sergeyevich STARIKOV

1998

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna

Barnaul

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Moscow

 

31/01/2021

article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

detention for 10 days

Moscow City Court

04/03/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 5.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 11.30 a.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/03/2021,

 

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.    

1276/22

24/12/2021

Roman Sergeyevich PROKHOROV

1993

Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich

Podolsk

Rally "Freedom to the political prisoners"

 

Moscow

 

04/11/2020

 

 

article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

27/09/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.10 p.m. to 8.45 p.m. on 04/11/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/09/2021

4,000

  1.    

3042/22

14/12/2021

Fedor Anatolyevich KOMAROV

1999

Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna

Kolomna

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Moscow

 

23/01/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

21/06/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/06/2021

4,000

  1.    

11599/22

17/02/2022

Olga Anatolyevna NAZARENKO

1975

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Ivanovo

 

21/04/2021

article 20.2 § 8 of CAO

100 hours of community work

Ivanovo Regional Court

18/08/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.05 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to 1.10 a.m. on 22/04/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Ivanovo Regional Court, 18/08/2021

5,000

  1.    

12079/22

09/02/2022

Vitaliy Dmitriyevich PETRUKHIN

1989

Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich

Sochi

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Krasnodar

 

21/04/2021

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Krasnodar Regional Court

09/12/2021

 

3,500

  1.  

13220/22

18/02/2022

Tatyana Vasilyevna KUDRYASHOVA

1992

Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna

Nizhniy Novgorod

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Nizhniy Novgorod

 

23/01/2021

 

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

18/08/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 18/08/2021

4,000

  1.  

24067/22

09/02/2022

Andrey Pavlovich PETRUKHIN

2002

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Moscow

 

21/04/2021

article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

17/08/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Detention at the police station on 30/04/2021 for 5 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 17/08/2021,

 

Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - Use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and his subsequent conviction (raised on appeal)

5,000

  1.  

24713/22

06/08/2021

Andrey Viktorovich KOROVYANSKIY

1988

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Rally "Free Navalnyy"

 

Moscow

 

31/01/2021

article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

detention for 7 days

Moscow City Court

08/02/2021

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 1.40 p.m. on 01/02/2021 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/02/2021,

 

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.  

31689/22

13/06/2022

Yekaterina Aleksandrovna SHAKUN

1996

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna

Barnaul

Anti-war protest

 

Rostov-on-Don

 

06/03/2022

article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

detention for 15 days

Rostov Regional Court

19/03/2022

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 6 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 11 a.m. on 07/03/2022 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 19/03/2022,

 

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.  

33769/22

22/06/2022

Roman Igorevich ZHUKOV

1985

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna

Barnaul

Anti-war protest

 

Ufa

 

06/03/2022

article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

detention for 24 hours

Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic

11/04/2022

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.10 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 2 p.m. on 07/03/2022 until the court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, 11/04/2022

5,000

  1.  

40255/22

30/07/2022

Marat Kadirovich KHUSAINOV

1978

Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna

Nizhniy Novgorod

Anti-war protest

 

Nizhniy Novgorod

 

24/02/2022

article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

13/05/2022

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.40 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 7.20 p.m. on 25/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 13/05/2022

 

4,000

  1.  

41557/22

12/08/2022

Valentina Aleksandrovna SAFONOVA

1994

Baranova Natalya Andreyevna

Moscow

Anti-war protest

 

St Petersburg

 

25/02/2022

article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

St Petersburg City Court

12/04/2022

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 9.30 p.m. on 25/02/2022 to 3.45 p.m. on 26/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg Regional Court, 12/04/2022

4,000

  1.  

47578/22

06/09/2022

Larisa Timofeyevna SHVYNDINA

1959

 

 

Anti-war protest

 

Moscow

 

24/02/2022

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

15/06/2022

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.30 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 1.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 15/06/2022

4,000

  1.  

52091/22

07/10/2022

Mikhail NAYDEN

1982

Baranova Natalya Andreyevna

Moscow

Anti-war protest

 

Moscow

 

06/03/2022

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 20,000

Moscow City Court

09/06/2022

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.11 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 1 a.m. on 07/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/06/2022

4,000

 

 


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


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/408.html