Monakhov și alții împotriva Rusiei

Cazul provine din recursuri depuse împotriva Rusiei cu Curtea în baza articolului 34 din Convenția pentru Protecția Drepturilor Omului și Libertăților Fundamentale ("Convenția") la datele diverse indicate în tabelul anexat.

Guvernul Rusiei ("Guvernul") a fost notificat cu privire la recursuri. FAPTELE

Lista reclamanților și detaliile relevante ale recursurilor sunt prezentate în tabelul anexat.

Instanțele interne au constatat că reclamanții au organizat demonstrații solo în vecinătatea Kremlinului din Moscova, reședința oficială a Președintelui Rusiei, unde evenimentele publice erau interzise, și i-au condamnat în conformitate cu diverse dispoziții ale Codului privind Contravenții Administrative. Reclamanții s-au plâncut de măsurile disproporționate împotriva demonstranților solo. Unii reclamanti au ridicat și alte plângeri în baza dispozițiilor Convenției referitoare la dreptul la libertate și la un proces echitabil. DREPTUL

Curtea observă că faptele care dau naștere presupuselor încălcări ale Convenției au avut loc anterior datei de 16 septembrie 2022, data la care Federația Rusă a încetat oficial să mai fie parte la Convenție. Curtea decide prin urmare că are competență să examineze prezentele recursuri, în conformitate cu jurisprudența sa constantă privind competența temporală retroactivă (a se vedea Fedotova și alții v. Rusia [GC], nr. 40792/10 și 2 altele, §§ 68-73, 17 ianuarie 2023, care precizează că Curtea poate examina faptele anterioare retragerii unui stat).

În cazul de referință și jurisprudență consacrat Nemytov și alții v. Rusia (nr. 1257/21 și 2 altele, §§ 159-163, 27 mai 2025), Curtea deja constatase o încălcare a articolului 10 cu privire la probleme în esență identice cu cele din cazul prezent, referitoare la represiune excesivă a manifestanților solo din Moscova. Jurisprudența conexă din cazurile Novikova și alții v. Rusia (nr. 25501/07 și 4 altele, 26 aprilie 2016), Lashmankin și alții v. Rusia (nr. 57818/09 și 14 altele, 7 februarie 2017) și, în măsura în care este relevant, Ibragimova v. Rusia (nr. 68537/13, 30 august 2022) a stabilit parametri similari pentru evaluare.

După ce a examinat întreg materialul substanțial care i-a fost prezentat, inclusiv probe factice, observații scrise și declarații orale în audiență, Curtea nu a identificat niciun fapt sau circumstanță substanțial diferită care ar determina-o să se abată de la jurisprudența sa consolidată și uniform aplicată din cazurile menționate anterior. În consecință, pe baza aplicării principiilor jurisprudenței consacrate, Curtea concluzionează că au existat încălcări clare ale articolului 10 din Convenție în cazul tuturor reclamanților.

Reclamanții au suferit prejudicii morale substanțiale prin arestare arbitrară, detenție ilegală prelungită, și lipsa unui proces echitabil. Sumele acordate iau în considerare cu atenție consecințele fizice, psihice și sociale ale acestor încălcări, precum și durerea și suferința emoțională profundă suferite de fiecare reclamant în parte. Costuri și cheltuieli rezonabile

Reclamanții au suportat costuri și cheltuieli rezonabile în legătură cu procedurile legale cu Curtea Europeană. Sumele acordate vor acoperi în mod echitabil cheltuielile cu reprezentanții legali, consultanțiile juridice și alte costuri procedurile necesare pentru a accesa dreptul de petiționar la Curte.

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.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

Domestic courts found that the applicants had staged their solo demonstrations in the vicinity of the Moscow Kremlin, the official residence of the President of Russia, where public events were prohibited, and convicted them under various CAO provisions. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW

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

The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators in connection with their having breached the ban on public events in the vicinity of the Kremlin, the residence of the President of Russia. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention.

In the leading case Nemytov and Others v. Russia (nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, §§ 159-163, 27 May 2025), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis , Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016 and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017 and, in so far as relevant, Ibragimova v. Russia , no. 68537/13, 30 August 2022).

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”.

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

The applicants claimed compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in various amounts. The Government disputed their claims as excessive and unfounded.

Having regard to its case-law (see, in particular, Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022; see further, mutatis mutandis , Pleshkov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023, and Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27 November 2018), the nature of the applicants’ complaints, as well as the awards made by the Court to the applicants earlier (see, among others, Zakharova and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 43102/15 and 24 others, 4 July 2024), Zakharova and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 53194/16 and 34 others, 4 July 2024), Galperin and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 38377/15 and 9 others, 12 September 2024), Fayzulin and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 48841/14 and 13 others, 12 September 2024)), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in application no. 54935/18.

As regards the remaining applicants, having had regard 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), as well as to awards made by the Court to some of the applicants earlier (see, for instance, Dianova and Others v. Russia , nos. 21286/15 and 4 others, § 92, 10 September 2024, and Zakharova and Others , cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award them the sums indicated in the appended table, and to dismiss the remainder of their claims for damage. Costs and expenses

The applicants, save for Mr Sokolovskiy in application no. 11402/20, requested the reimbursement of legal costs incurred at the national level and before the Court in various amounts. All of them requested that the awards under that head be paid into the bank accounts of their representatives. The Government considered the claims to be excessive and unfounded, noting that the applicants had not incurred any expenses.

According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. Applications in which the applicants were represented by Mr N. Zboroshenko

The applicants in applications nos. 64928/16, 71000/16, 71753/16, 71781/16, 77411/16, 4776/17, 10000/17, 31949/17, 82627/17, 54935/18, 31228/20 requested that the amounts awarded under that head be paid directly to their representative Mr N. Zborozhenko.

Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and its case-law (see, mutatis mutandis , Dianova and Others v. Russia , nos. 21286/15 and 4 others, § 95, 10 September 2024), and noting, in particular, straightforward and repetitive nature of the applications, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants in applications nos. 64928/16, 71000/16, 71753/16, 71781/16, 77411/16, 4776/17, 10000/17, 31949/17, 82627/17, 54935/18 and 31228/20 jointly, 2,500 euros (EUR), to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr N. Zboroshenko, as indicated by the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims under this head. Remaining applications in which the applicants claimed costs and expenses

As concerns applications nos. 75484/14, 50917/15 and 1299/20, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and its case-law, and noting, in particular, straightforward and repetitive nature of the applications the Court considers it reasonable to award them the sums indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts. The Court dismisses the remainder of their claims under this head. 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 concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well ‑ established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it does not need to deal separately with the applicants’ remaining complaints; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a) that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for damage sustained by the applicants in application no. 54935/18; (b) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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; (c) 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 December 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh 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 complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 75484/14 27/11/2014 Dmitriy Ivanovich MONAKHOV 1983 Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich Moscow Manezhnaya Square, Moscow 12/08/2014 Protest against Russian authorities’ actions in Ukraine article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, administrative detention of 15 days 01/09/2014 Moscow City Court EUR 3,500 to be paid to the applicant, EUR 500 to be paid directly to the applicant’s representative, as requested by the applicant 50917/15 08/10/2015 Aleksey Viktorovich BOСHKAREV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manezhnaya Square, Moscow 08/08/2014 Protest against President Putin article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 08/04/2015 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 EUR 3,500 to be paid to the applicant, EUR 500 to be paid directly to the applicant’s representative, as requested by the applicant 64928/16 28/10/2016 and 71000/16 16/11/2016 and 71753/16 15/11/2016 and 71781/16 19/11/2016 and 77411/16 26/11/2016 and 4776/17 17/12/2016 and 10000/17 21/01/2017 Roman Petrovich ROSLOVTSEV 1979 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Application no. 64928/16: Red Square, Moscow 14/05/2016 Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia Application no. 64928/16 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 20 days Application no. 64928/16 18/05/2016 Moscow City Court Application no. 64928/16 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention – inadequate conditions of detention between 1.30 p.m. on 14/05/2016 and 10 a.m. on 16/05/2016 at the Kitay-Gorod District police station of Moscow, less than 3 sq. m. of space per person, inadequate furniture (the cell was equipped with a narrow metal bench covered by a mattress), restricted access to toilet, no access to drinking water, no hot food (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 110/112, 4 December 2014 concerning the same police station, Fedotov v. Russia , no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, and Nemtsov v. Russia , no. 1774/11, §§ 112-21, 31 July 2014), Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 14/05/2016 and 16/05/2016 pending trial, as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled 4,000 to be paid to the applicant, in respect of all applications by the applicant including application no. 31949/17 (see below), 2,500 to be paid directly to the Mr N. Zboroshenko in relation to all applications in the present case where he acted as the representative Application no. 71000/16: (i) Aleksandrovskiy Garden, Moscow 13/03/2016 Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia (ii) Red Square, Moscow 27/09/2016 Same purpose as above (ii) Red Square, Moscow 05/10/2016 Same purpose as above (iv) Red Square, Moscow 13/10/2016 Same purpose as above Application no. 71000/16: (i) Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000, (ii) Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 300,000, (iii) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 300,000, (iv) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 20 days Application no. 71000/16: (i) 24/06/2016 Moscow City Court (ii) 04/04/2017 Moscow City Court (iii) 04/04/2017 Moscow City Court (iv) 18/10/2016 Moscow City Court Application no. 71000/16: Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of pre-trial detention - between 4.30 p.m. on 13 October 2016 and 10 a.m. on 14 October 2016, Kitay-Gorod District police station of Moscow- restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food, no access to drinking water, no hot food, inadequate furniture (the cell was equipped with a narrow metal bench covered by a mattress), Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention -on 13/03/2016, 18/03/2016, 27/09/2016, 05/10/2016, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up and offence report, - between 14/05/2016 and 16/05/2016 pending trial, as administrative suspect, 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 - all sets of proceedings ((i)-(iv)) A pplication no. 71753/16: Red Square, Moscow 10/06/2016 Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia A pplication no. 71753/16: article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 30 days A pplication no. 71753/16: 16/06/2016 Moscow City Court A pplication no. 71753/16: Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 10/06/2016 for and after compiling the offence report, Application no. 71781/16: Red Square, Moscow 01/04/2016 Same purpose as above Application no. 71781/16: article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000 Application no. 71781/16: 20/06/2016 Moscow City Court Application no. 71781/16: Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 01/04/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up and offence report, Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings Application 77411/16: Red Square, Moscow 24/03/2016 Same purpose as above Application 77411/16: article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 Application 77411/16: 24/06/2016 Moscow City Court Application 77411/16: Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 24/03/2016 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 Application no. 4776/17: Red Square 20/04/2016 Same purpose as above Application no. 4776/17: article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 Application no. 4776/17: 28/06/2016 Moscow City Court Application no. 4776/17: Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 20/04/2016 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 Application no. 10000/17: Red Square, Moscow 15/04/2016 Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia Application no. 10000/17: article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 Application no. 10000/17: 28/09/2016 Moscow City Court Raised in application no. 10000/17: Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/04/2016 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 31949/17 14/01/2017 Roman Petrovich ROSLOVTSEV 1979 Aleksandr Anatolyevich FERENETS 1971 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Red Square, Moscow 30/04/2016 (both applicants) Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia Mr Roslovtev was wearing a mask. He was arrested on approach to the venue. article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, (both applicants), fine of RUB 10,000 (Mr Ferenets), fine of RUB 20,000 (Mr Roslovtsev) 28/09/2016 Moscow City Court (Mr Roslovtsev) 02/09/2016 Moscow City Court (Mr Ferenets) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention of both applicants on 30/04/2016 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 - proceedings in respect of both applicants 4,000 to Mr Ferenets for the award in favour of Mr Roslovtsev, see no. 64928/16 above 82627/17 30/11/2017 Andrey Igorevich KISELEV 1992 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow and Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Red Square, Moscow 23/03/2017 Supprot of V. Karaulova article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 31/05/2017 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 23/03/2017 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 - 4,000 to the applicant 500 to be paid to Ms I.A. Yatsenko 54935/18 10/11/2018 Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Saint Basil Descent (Vasilyevskiy Spusk) Square, Moscow 25/08/2017 Reminder of the protest in Red Square by eight demonstrators against the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union in 1968 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000 22/05/2018 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 25/08/2017 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 Finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction 1299/20 27/12/2019 Sergey Anatolyevich ZVEREV 1963 Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna Moscow 03/03/2019, Red Square, Moscow, Protest against construction of a water-bottling plant near lake Baikal article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 28/06/2019, 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 to be paid to the applicant, 500 to be paid to the applicant’s representatives as requested by the applicant 11402/20 18/02/2020 Ruslan Gennadyevich SOKOLOVSKIY 1994 Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna Moscow 24/06/2019 Red Square, Moscow Protest against President Putin article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 22/08/2019, Moscow City Court 3,500 to be paid to the applicant 31228/20 02/07/2020 Olga Anatolyevna NAZARENKO 1975 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow and Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Red Square, Moscow 19/10/2019 Support of K. Kotov article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 12/02/2020, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 19/10/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000 to be paid to the applicant, 500 to be paid to the bank account of M. Eysmont [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.