THIRD SECTION CASE OF LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 57818/09 and 14 others - see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 February 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................... 4 THE FACTS ............................................................................................................. 5 I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ...................................................... 5 A. Application no. 57818/09 Lashmankin v. Russia .......................................... 5 B. Application no. 51169/10 Nepomnyashchiy v. Russia .................................. 6 1. Notification of a “picket” in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow .............................................................................................................. 6 2. Notification of a “picket” in the Central Administrative District of Moscow .............................................................................................................. 7 C. Application no. 4618/11 Ponomarev and Ikhlov v. Russia ........................... 8 D. Application no. 31040/11 Ponomarev and Others v. Russia ......................... 9 E. Application no. 19700/11 Yefremenkova and Others v. Russia .................. 12 1. 2010 assemblies ................................................................................................. 12 2. 2011 assemblies ................................................................................................. 17 F. Application no. 55306/11 Kosinov and Others v. Russia ............................ 20 G. Application no. 7189/12 Zhidenkov and Others v. Russia .......................... 23 H. Applications nos. 47609/11, 59410/11, 16128/12, 16134/12, 20273/12, 51540/12 and 64243/12 Nagibin and Others v. Russia .............. 25 1. ”Picket” of 12 June 2009 ................................................................................... 25 2. Meetings between October 2009 and October 2010 .......................................... 27 3. Meeting of 31 October 2010 .............................................................................. 27 4. “Picket” of 31 December 2010 .......................................................................... 29 5. Meeting of 31 March 2011 ................................................................................ 30 6. Meeting of 31 July 2011 .................................................................................... 33 7. Meeting of 31 August 2011 ............................................................................... 35 8. Meetings in October and December 2011 ......................................................... 36 9. Meeting of 31 January 2012 .............................................................................. 37 10. Meetings between March and August 2012 .................................................... 38 I. Application no. 37038/13 Tarasov v. Russia ................................................ 39 II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW ................................................................... 40 A. Freedom of peaceful assembly .................................................................... 40 B. Procedure for the conduct of public events ................................................. 40 1. The procedure in force at the material time ....................................................... 40 2. The amendments introduced on 8 June 2012..................................................... 45 3. Further amendments .......................................................................................... 46 4. Case-law of the Constitutional Court concerning the procedure for the conduct of public events .................................................................................. 46 C. Civil proceedings ......................................................................................... 52 1. Before 15 September 2015 ............................................................................... 52 2. Since 15 September 2015 .................................................................................. 54 2 LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT D. Liability for breaches committed in the course of public events ................. 56 1. Domestic provisions before 8 June 2012 ........................................................... 56 2. The amendments introduced on 8 June 2012..................................................... 56 3. Examination of administrative charges.............................................................. 59 E. Administrative arrest .................................................................................... 59 III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE MATERIAL ..................................................................................................... 61 A. United Nations Organisation documents ..................................................... 61 B. Council of Europe documents ..................................................................... 63 C. Other international documents ..................................................................... 72 D. Comparative law material ............................................................................ 79 THE LAW .............................................................................................................. 82 I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS ........................................................... 82 II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION ............................................................................................... 82 A. Admissibility .............................................................................................. 82 B. Merits .......................................................................................................... 82 1. Submissions by the parties ................................................................................. 82 2. The Court’s assessment ..................................................................................... 86 III. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 10, 11 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION ............................................................................................... 92 A. Submissions by the parties .......................................................................... 93 1. The applicants .................................................................................................... 93 2. The Government .............................................................................................. 102 B. The Court’s assessment ............................................................................. 106 1. Admissibility .................................................................................................... 106 2. Merits ............................................................................................................... 107 IV. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ............................................................................................. 132 A. Admissibility ............................................................................................ 132 B. Merits ........................................................................................................ 133 1. Submissions by the parties ............................................................................... 133 2. The Court’s assessment ................................................................................... 134 V. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION ............................................................................................. 135 A. Application no. 31040/11 Ponomarev and Others v. Russia ..................... 135 1. Admissibility .................................................................................................... 136 2. Merits ............................................................................................................... 136 B. Application no. 37038/13 Tarasov v. Russia ............................................. 138 LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 3 VI. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION .............. 139 VII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION ............... 139 A. Damage ..................................................................................................... 139 B. Costs and expenses ................................................................................... 140 C. Default interest......................................................................................... 141 OPERATIVE PART ........................................................................................... 142 APPENDIX .......................................................................................................... 144 4 LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT In the case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Luis López Guerra, President, Helena Jäderblom, Helen Keller, Dmitry Dedov, Branko Lubarda, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 January 2017, Delivers the following judgment,