THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 9837/18 and 15 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

16 January 2025

 

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


In the case of Malov and Others v. Russia,

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

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 December 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 against solo demonstrators. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

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, §§ 6873, 17 January 2023).

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

7.  The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016).

8.  In the leading case of Novikova and Others v. Russia (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 432-42, 7 February 2017; Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 50-59, 30 April 2019, and Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023).

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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 expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

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

11.  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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocol 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; 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

12.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its caselaw (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers 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 10 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention;
  4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;
  5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocol 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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

 


APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

 

Representative’s name and location

Location

Date

Purpose of the demonstration

Administrative charges

Penalty

Final domestic decision

Date

Name of the court

Other relevant information

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros)[1]

  1.    

9837/18

09/02/2018

Anatoliy Viktorovich MALOV

1980

 

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Kazan

08/07/2017

Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

community service of 30 hours

09/08/2017

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

3,500

  1.    

11452/18

02/03/2018

Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KLEPIKOV

1983

 

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Moscow

08/07/2017

Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

06/09/2017

Moscow City Court

distribution of leaflets held by solo participants simultaneously at several Metro stations considered as a single group event

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

3,500

  1.    

15399/18

23/03/2018

Yegor Alekseyevich ARKHAROV

1996

 

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Moscow

08/07/2017

Distribution of leaflets in support of A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

12/10/2017

Moscow City Court

distribution of leaflets held by solo participants simultaneously at several Metro stations considered as a single group event

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 08/07/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence

4,000

  1.    

20078/19

31/03/2019

Vadim Vadimovich GLEBOV

1941

 

Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich

Nizhniy Novgorod

(i) Nizhniy Novgorod

02/06/2018

Support of O. Sentsov and V. Balukh

 

 

 

(ii) Nizhniy Novgorod

18/06/2018

Support of O. Sentsov and V. Balukh

 

 

 

(iii) Nizhniy Novgorod

08/08/2020

Support of Khabarovsk protesters

(i), article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

community service of 20 hours,

 

 

(ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

community service of 20 hours,

 

 

(iii), article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 1,000

(i) 04/10/2018

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

 

(ii) 04/10/2018

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

 

(iii) 24/12/2020

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - third set of proceedings - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - all sets of proceedings

 

 

 

4,000

  1.    

27898/19

04/05/2019

Aleksandr Viktorovich FEDOSEYEV

1990

 

Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich

St Petersburg

05/10/2018

St Petersburg

Protest against the appointment of a new Governor of St Petersburg

 

article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 1,000

22/11/2018

St Petersburg City Court

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station, detention between 05/10/2018 and 06/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.    

28357/19

06/05/2019

Andrey Sergeyevich NIKITIN

1999

 

Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich

St Petersburg

St Petersburg

05/10/2018

Protest against the appointment of a new Governor of St Petersburg

 

 

article 19.3 § 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 1,000

22/11/2018

St Petersburg City Court

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 05/10/2018 and 06/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.    

43614/19

22/08/2019

Zoya Zinovyevna NIKOLSKAYA

1956

 

 

 

Moscow

24/04/2019

Protest against onychectomy of cats

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

10/07/2019

Moscow City Court

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

3,500

  1.    

19856/20

14/03/2020

Petr Sergeyevich DONDUKOV

1983

 

Lozovskaya Svetlana Valeryevna

Ulan-Ude

Soviets Square, Ulan-Ude

10/09/2019

Protest against arrests of political activists and calls to take part in a related manifestation

 

article 20.2 § 8 of CAO

administrative detention of 10 days

20/09/2019

Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic

 

 

4,000

  1.    

41415/20

08/09/2020

Sergey Igorevich RYABOV

1992

 

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

Tula

12/03/2020

Protest against the constitutional amendments

article 20.2 § 2 of CAO

fine of RUB 25,000

27/04/2020

Tula Regional Court

 

 

3,500

  1.  

31832/21

07/06/2021

Sergey Nikolayevich ABLEYEV

2002

 

Ruchko Irina Yuryevna

Yekaterinburg

Yekaterinburg

25/07/2020

Support of Khabarovsk protesters

 

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

08/12/2020

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 25/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 31/08/2020 only)

4,000

  1.  

34973/21

20/06/2021

Maksim Vladimirovich MAKEYCHIK

1991

 

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna

Barnaul

Kaliningrad

21/08/2020

Support of A. Navalnyy

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

16/02/2021

Kaliningrad Regional Court

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

3,500

  1.  

35419/21

22/06/2021

Saule Kabashyevna SHAYNAZAROVA

1963

 

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Moscow

01/09/2020

Drawing attention to social and political problems

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

24/12/2020

Moscow City Court

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 01/09/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.  

3174/22

09/12/2021

Vladimir Vasilyevich DOROFEYEV

1993

 

Avanesyan Aleksey Viktorovich

Krasnodar

Krasnodar

30/07/2020

Protest of defrauded shareholders

article 20.2 § 2 of CAO

administrative detention of 1 day

Krasnodar Regional Court

09/08/2021

use of a quickly (de)assembled object - a tent

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful pre-trial detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention 30/07/2020 and 31/07/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence report was compiled,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

4,000

  1.  

34931/22

21/06/2022

Alisa Aleksandrovna BOGATYREVA

1992

 

Savin Aleksandr Vasilyevich

Stavropol

Stavropol

06/03/2022

Protest against suppression of opposition media outlets

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

 

18/05/2022

Stavropol Regional Court

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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

  1.  

38000/22

05/07/2022

Ivan Romanovich KOZIKHIN

1991

 

Sabirov Rim Faridovich

Kazan

Kazan

27/02/2022

Anti-war protest

article 20.2 § 8 of CAO

administrative detention of 10 days

05/03/2022

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station between 27/02/2022 and 28/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after an offence report was compiled,

 

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 28/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5,000

  1.  

40532/22

30/06/2020

Vera Petrovna TERESHONKOVA

1958

 

 

 

(I) Syktyvkar

01/05/2019

Protest against a ban on public events in Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar

 

 

(ii) Syktyvkar

27/02/2022

Anti-war protest

 

(i) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 5,000

 

 

 

 

(ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 12,000

(i) 02/10/2019

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

 

 

(ii) 20/04/2022

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of the courts’ buildings- both sets of proceedings

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station (i) on 01/05/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record, and (ii) on 27/02/2022, for the same purpose,

 

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 administrative proceedings

4,000

 

 


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