CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sF3E5166E { height:263.55pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC34FD199 { height:242.4pt } .s4582CFFD { height:131.55pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF YAKOVLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 46371/19 and 18 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 January 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yakovlev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 December 2022, 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 applicants were represented by A. Bushmakov, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. 3.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 §   1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (b)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non- compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so[.]” 8.     The Court reiterates that that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom , 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III). 9.     In the earlier cases against Russia, the Court has consistently held that (1) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018), or (2) “escorting” to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention. 10.     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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 its well-established case-law (see, among other numerous authorities, Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; Frumkin v.   Russia , no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   179-191, 10   April 2018; and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38 ‑ 42, 8   October 2019, concerning delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal). 13.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses and/or to take part in the hearing. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     In applications nos.   7319/20 and 7945/20 the applicants also raised other complaints under Article   5 of the Convention. 15.     The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 17.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (as specified in the appended table) admissible, decides that it is not necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article   6 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the criminal (administrative) proceedings against them and dismisses the remainder of applications nos.   7319/20 and 7945/20 as inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty); Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 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 12 January 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     46371/19 13/08/2019 Leonid Olegovich YAKOVLEV 1985 14/05/2019 8.50 p.m. 15/05/2019 until the court hearing Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art.   27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019)   Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings- Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 §   1 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 4   days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§   179 ‑ 191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v.   Russia, no. 13764/15, §§   38 ‑ 42., 8 October 2019). 3,900     46381/19 13/08/2019 Aleksey Aleksandrovich VOROBYEV 1994 15/05/2019 2.45 a.m. 15/05/2019 until the court hearing Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019)   Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 2 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 4 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v.   Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42., 8 October 2019). 3,900     46384/19 13/08/2019 Anton Yevgenyevich TRUBIN 1997 14/05/2019 11.55 p.m. 15/05/2019 until the court hearing Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019)     Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5 (1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision - 22/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 1 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 5 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 22/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v.   Russia, no. 13764/15, §§   38 ‑ 42., 8 October 2019). 3,900     46392/19 13/08/2019 Yegor Vyacheslavovich BALTINSKIKH 1998 15/05/2019 0.50 a.m. 15/05/2019 Until the court hearing Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019)   Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision - 22/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 1 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 5 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 22/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019). 3,900     46394/19 13/08/2019 Artem Andreyevich KOZLOV 1987 14/05/2019 14/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 2 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 8 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v.   Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42., 8 October 2019). 3,900     46399/19 13/08/2019 Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich STARTSEV 1995 15/05/2019 02.15 a.m. 15/05/2019 until the court hearing Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019)     Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 2 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 5 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v.   Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019). 3,900     5480/20 14/01/2020 Stanislav Aleksandrovich MELNICHENKO 1988 15/05/2019 15/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 17/07/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 12,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 17/07/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900     6756/20 18/01/2020 Konstantin Grigoryevich GUBAYEV 1987 15/05/2019 15/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision – 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900     6895/20 22/01/2020 Anastasiya Petrovna PEREVOZCHIKOVA 1994 16/05/2019 16/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings: Final decision - 21/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 16/05/2019. Final decision - 21/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   6984/20 22/01/2020 Anton Aleksandrovich KAPTELOV 1974 16/05/2019 16/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 16/05/2019. Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   7319/20 22/01/2020 Nikita Yuryevich STRAGIS 1982 16/05/2019 16/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings -. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant. was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 16/05/2019. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   7945/20 15/01/2020 Maksim Sergeyevich GOROSHKO 1998 16/05/2019 16/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 16/05/2019. Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   7996/20 22/01/2020 Ivan Viktorovich KOLYAGIN 1986 15/05/2019 15/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   9974/20 27/01/2020 Abdullokh Shukhratbek ugli ZHIYANBEKOV 2000 15/05/2019 15/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision – 08/10/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 08/10/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   10001/20 27/01/2020 Mikhail Alekseyevich DENISENKO 1996 15/05/2019 15/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision – 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   10007/20 27/01/2020 Semen Andreyevich LEONTYEV 2000 04/06/2019 04/06/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision – 28/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the app. was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 04/06/2019. Final decision - 28/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   10011/20 27/01/2020 Dmitriy Leonidovich DANILIN 1982 04/06/2019 04/06/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 10/09/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 04/06/2019. Final decision - 10/09/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   10013/20 27/01/2020 Ruslan Maksimovich KOMADEY 1990 15/05/2019 15/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings -. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900   10014/20 27/01/2020 Andrey Anatolyevich GOLDENKOV 1987 15/05/2019 15/05/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 20/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 20/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court. 3,900     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.