CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 2 mars 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sEC1E756B { height:55.75pt } .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 } .s2AFCED6 { height:188.55pt } .sC338E089 { height:70.85pt } .s734E86CB { height:115pt } .s6EA0089D { height:85.4pt } .s93C426CC { height:105.9pt } .s3A60993A { height:151.3pt } .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 SULAKADZE AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 52527/18 and 23 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 2 March 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sulakadze 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 2 February 2023, 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 taken against them as organisers and/or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto. 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and/or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. 7.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR   2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 8.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, ECHR   2016 (extracts)), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia (no. 76204/11, 4   December 2014), and Kasparov and Others v.   Russia (no.   21613/07, 3   October 2013), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to 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 assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     The 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. 12.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocol in the light of its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018, Kalyapin v. Russia , no. 6095/09, § 76, 23   July 2019, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, §§   34-36, 8   October 2019, concerning different aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events, Karelin v. Russia , no.   926/08, 20   September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO), Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   54381/08   and 5 others, §§ 178-91, 10 April 2018, and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§   38-42, 8   October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal and immediate execution of a sentence of administrative detention). Remaining complaints 13.     In view of the above findings in paragraph 12, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article   6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, most recently, Savelov and others v.   Russia [Committee], no.   62815/10 and 5 others, 1 December 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the dispersal of the public assemblies and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately remaining complaints under Article   6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the public assemblies; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocol thereto 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; Dismisses the reminder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 March 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 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative charges (Article of CAO) Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros) [1]     52527/18 24/10/2018 Oleg Georgiyevich SULAKADZE 1949 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Mother’s Day in Ostankino   Moscow   11/03/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 14/05/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 14/05/2018 3,900     52531/18 24/10/2018 Svetlana Vadimovna KRYLOVA 1981 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against Mr Putin’s re ‑ election   Kazan   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 08/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unrecorded detention and in excess of three hours, on 04/07/2018, when the applicant was called to the police station to draw up a record of administrative offence related to the participation in manifestation on 05/05/2018, she remained detained until the first instance hearing in the administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 08/08/2018 3,900     1194/19 11/12/2018 Sergey Alekseyevich BRENYUK 1954 Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Meeting with electorate   Angarsk   22/08/2020     Political Manifestation   Angarsk   22/08/2020     Manifestation against pension reform   Angarsk   04/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 1               Article 20.2 § 2               Article 20.2 § 2 fine of RUB   10,000             fine of RUB   25,000             fine of RUB   20,000 Irkutsk Regional Court 27/10/2020           Irkutsk Regional Court 27/10/2020           Irkutsk Regional Court 08/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the three sets of the administrative-offence proceedings indicated in column no.   8 3,900     11860/19 07/02/2019 Igor Olegovich MARTYNENKO 1993 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Artistic manifestation   Irkutsk   01/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 2 fine of RUB   25,000 Irkutsk Regional Court 07/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) – Partially unrecorded detention as administrative suspect on 14/06/2018 and 15/06/2018, in excess of three hours;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Irkutsk Regional Court, 07/08/2018 3,900     31151/19 27/05/2019 Roman Vladimirovich MALCHIKOV 1980 Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich Nizhniy Novgorod Manifestation against pension reform   Nizhniy Novgorod   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 §   6.1 10 days’ administrative detention Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 06/12/2018 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 02/10/2018, in excess of three   hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings- Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 06/12/2018;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - the sentence of administrative detention imposed by the first instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 3,900     51001/19 19/09/2019 Oleg Yuryevich YESHEVSKIY 1970 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against a landfill construction   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   12,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 13/08/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 13/08/2019 3,900     53511/19 25/09/2019 Dmitriy Sergeyevich TOMATIN 1992 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against a landfill construction   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   13,900 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 27/06/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 27/06/2019 3,900     54131/19 26/09/2019 Igor Stanislavovich MOKHNATKIN 1985 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against a landfill construction   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   14,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 20/06/2019 Art. 5 (1) - arrest on 19/05/2019 and an overnight detention as administrative suspect in order to be escorted for the hearing in the trial court;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 20/06/2019 3,900     59286/19 31/10/2019 Mariya Viktorovna KOSTENKO 1987 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against a landfill construction   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 fine of RUB   14,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 17/05/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 17/05/2019 3,900   6793/20 17/01/2020 Anton Yuryevich YEGOROV 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 03/08/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 16/09/2019 3,900   7776/20 17/01/2020 Denis Sergeyevich NOCHEVKA 1992 Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich Sochi Manifestation against the pension reform   Krasnodar   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 23/07/2019 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 09/09/2018, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Krasnodar Regional Court, 23/07/2019 3,900   8432/20 24/01/2020 Ivan Viktorovich LEONTYEV 1982 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against a landfill construction   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019 Article 20.2 § 6 fine of RUB   10,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 21/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 17/10/2019 - 18/10/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 21/11/2019 3,900   8433/20 24/01/2020 Yuriy Nikolayevich SHCHERBACHEV 1951 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against a landfill construction   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019 Article 20.0 § 8 fine of RUB   160,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 26/11/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 26/11/2019 5,000   10138/20 13/02/2020 Konstantin Nikolayevich KOBANENKO 1969 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 20/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) – detention as administrative suspect on 03/08/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 20/09/2019 3,900   10143/20 13/02/2020 Aleksey Igorevich VOROBYEV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 16/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 03/08/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 16/09/2019 3,900   10260/20 13/02/2020 Vladislav Vagifovich SEYFULLAYEV 1979 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 08/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 03/08/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019 3,900   10264/20 13/02/2020 Kirill Yevgenyevich DUSHIN 1988 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 24/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 03/08/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019 3,900   10972/20 07/02/2020 Rinat Munirovich DUBIN 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 03/08/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 02/10/2019 3,900   11159/20 07/02/2020 Artem Aleksandrovich VITYUTNEV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 18/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 03/08/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 18/10/2019 3,900   14072/20 28/02/2020 Yelena Aleksandrovna SHVAREVA 1979 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against a landfill construction   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   11,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 21/01/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 21/01/2020 3,900   14858/20 28/02/2020 Artur Vladimirovich NOVIKOV 1999 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Manifestation against a landfill construction   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   12,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 21/01/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 21/01/2020 3,900   27965/20 25/06/2020 Alim Nazirovich AKHKUBEKOV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 06/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - detention as administrative suspect on 27/07/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 06/11/2019 3,900   29895/20 13/07/2020 Vitaliy Valeryevich ZOTOV 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 24/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) – overnight detention as administrative suspect on 27/07/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the above administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019 3,900   29995/20 13/07/2020 Aleksandr Eduardovich SOLODOVNIK 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 20/01/2020 Art. 5 (1) - detention as an administrative suspect on 27/07/2019, in excess of three hours, for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 20/01/2020 3,900     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.