FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ANTONOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 20265/18 and 11 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
12 September 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Antonova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 María Elósegui, President,
 Kateřina Šimáčková,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 July 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. They 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 10 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants 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 (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, and Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023). 9. 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 expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, 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 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 (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, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of 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
12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 5 and 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 6: violation