AFFAIRE YARTSEV c. RUSSIE

• Judgment Date: 20 July 2021
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0720JUD001668317
• Counsel: GLUSHKOVA T.
• Date: 20 July 2021
• Application Number: 16683/17
• Court: Third Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: Rusia
• Applied Rules: 10;10-1

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF YARTSEV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 16683/17)

JUDGMENT

Art 10 • Freedom of expression • No legal basis for applicant’s conviction for shouting slogans not corresponding to the declared aims of a lawful public event

STRASBOURG

20 July 2021

FINAL

20/10/2021

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Yartsev v. Russia,

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

Paul Lemmens, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Georges Ravarani,
Darian Pavli,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Peeter Roosma,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 16683/17) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Dmitriy Sergeyevich Yartsev (“the applicant”), on 25 February 2017;

the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints of violations of the right to freedom of expression and assembly and the right to a fair trial and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 29 June 2021,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for an administrative offence for shouting slogans during a lawful public assembly that did not correspond to the declared aims of that assembly.

THE FACTS

2. The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Moscow. He was represented by Ms T. Glushkova, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

3. The Government were represented initially by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr A. Fedorov.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

5. On 26 April 2016 a deputy mayor of Moscow approved a march from Samotechnaya Square to Suvorovskaya Square and a meeting in Suvorovskaya Square to be held on 1 May 2016 from 5.30 to 7.30 p.m., with 400 people expected to take part. The aim of the public event was “to draw the attention of Russian workers to the need to show solidarity and fight for labour rights on Spring and Labour Day”.

6. On the same day the organisers of the event posted on Facebook an invitation to all “left, anarchist, feminist and LGBT groups” to join the event.

7. On 1 May 2016 the applicant, an LGBT activist, joined the public event as the coordinator of the LGBT column. According to him, he chanted anti‑discrimination slogans such as “No discrimination on grounds of sex and sexual orientation”, “Labour rights for all” and others through a loudspeaker.

8. At 7 p.m., after the end of the public event, the applicant was taken to a police station, where he remained until 8.30 p.m.

9. Police reports dated 1 May 2016 stated that the applicant had participated in a public event that had not received official approval. He had been part of a group of about six people chanting “Stop abuse by cops” and “Down with the police State”. He had not complied with repeated requests by the police to stop and had continued to attract people’s attention with his behaviour.

10. On the same day the applicant was charged with a breach of the established rules for the conduct of public events, an offence under Article 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences CAO (hereafter “the CAO”).

11. On 30 June 2016 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant as charged and fined him 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB, about 140 euros). The court held as follows:

“It appears from the material in the case file that at about 7 p.m. on 1 May 2016 [the applicant] took part in a public event in the form of a meeting in Suvorovskaya Square in Moscow. The meeting had not been notified to or received the approval of the executive authorities of the city of Moscow. He did not comply with repeated requests by the police to stop the event. He therefore breached [the Public Events Act].

...

The arguments by [the applicant] and his counsel that the march and the meeting of 1 May 2016 in Suvorovskaya Square had received the official approval of the executive authorities are unconvincing. It appears from a letter from [the Moscow authorities] that the executive authorities had approved a march from Samotechnaya Square ... to Suvorovskaya Square from 5.30 to 6.30 p.m. on 1 May 2016 and a meeting in Suvorovskaya Square from 6 to 7 p.m. The declared aim of that public event was “to draw the attention of Russian workers to the need to show solidarity and fight for labour rights on Spring and Labour Day”. [The applicant’s]...