CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 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 } .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 } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF ASKEROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 1712/20 and 20 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 March 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Askerov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 March 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 applicants were represented by Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation practicing in Moscow. 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 disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies, namely the manifestations for fair elections to the Moscow City Parliament in summer 2019 in Moscow. 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   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     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). 9.     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 case. 10.     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 interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly was not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 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 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. 13.     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 Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§   63-65, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-23, 10 April 2018; Kalyapin v. Russia , no. 6095/09, §   76, 23   July 2019; and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8   October 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events; and Karelin v. Russia , no.   926/08, 20   September 2016, related to examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)). Remaining complaints 14.     The applicants further raised additional complaints under Article   6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15.     The applicants in applications nos. 8167/20 and 8198/20 also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court 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 do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. 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, recently, Savelov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   62815/10 and 5 others, 1 December 2022), the Court finds 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 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, decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article   6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative offence proceedings, and declares the remainder of applications nos.   8167/20 and 8198/20 inadmissible; Holds that these applications 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 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 23 March 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   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   Date of the manifestation for fair elections in Moscow Administrative charges Penalty Final decision: Moscow City Court, Date Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros) [1]     1712/20 27/12/2019 Elmir Akper ogly ASKEROV 1994 03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 18/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.40 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 2.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the applicant remained in detention even after the record had been completed;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/10/2019. 4,000     1801/20 18/12/2019 Konstantin Sergeyevich LEVIN 1992 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 26/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.50 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 00.15 a.m. on 28/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/08/2019. 4,000     1823/20 27/12/2019 Nikolay Anatolyevich NIKULSHIN 1991 03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 03/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/10/2019. 4,000     7023/20 30/12/2019 Bogdan Igorevich SHUMSKIY 1992 03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/10/2019. 4,000     8167/20 29/01/2020 Konstantin Yuryevich ZHAROV 1974 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 30/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.00 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 12.30 a.m. on 29/07/2019, until the hearing on the applicant’s administrative-offence case;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 30/10/2019. 4,000     8198/20 29/01/2020 Grigoriy Iosifovich KLEMENTYEV 1974 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 16/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 8.00 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 10.00.p.m on 29/07/2019, till the hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 16/10/2019.   4,000     8319/20 03/02/2020 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GALKIN 1994 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 08/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019;   Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 9.00 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 00.25 a.m. on 28/07/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 30/07/2019. 4,000     8324/20 03/02/2020 Maksim Anatolyevich STROKOV 1990 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 04.20 a.m. on 28/07/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 02/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/10/2019. 4,000     8333/20 03/02/2020 Maksim Olegovich YAKOVLEV 1985 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 28/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.10 p.m. to 11.10 p.m. on 27/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/08/2019.   4,000   10255/20 13/02/2020 Sergey Vladimirovich KUOK (former KULIKOV) 1968 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 12/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 27/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/11/2019. 4,000   10262/20 13/02/2020 Maksim Olegovich MASHKOV 1980 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 22/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.40 p.m. to 20.40 p.m. on 27/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 22/11/2019. 4,000   12149/20 27/02/2020 Mikhail Yuryevich GAMOV 1970 03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 04/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.25 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 02.30 p.m. on 04/08/2019; the applicant remained in detention even after the record had been completed;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/09/2019. 4,000   14030/20 28/02/2020 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich ALEKSANIN 1982 03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 28/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.00 p.m. on 04/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/08/2019. 4,000   24876/20 22/06/2020 Olesya Nikolayevna YELFIMOVA 1983 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.25 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 00.45 p.m. on 28/07/2019; the applicant remained in detention even after the record had been completed;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/10/2019. 4,000   25283/20 23/06/2020 Pavel Germanovich MILOVIDOV 1988 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 26/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.30 p.m. to 6.20 p.m. on 27/07/2019;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019. 4,000   25316/20 23/06/2020 Dmitriy Pavlovich ASAVKIN 1991 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000     26/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 8.20 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 03.00 p.m. on 29/07/2019, until the hearing on the applicant’s administrative-offence case;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019. 4,000   25904/20 22/06/2020 Dmitriy Yuryevich KHARITONOV 1975 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 22/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.40 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 03.00 a.m. on 28/07/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 01/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 22/11/2019. 4,000   25937/20 22/06/2020 Matvey Gennadyevich KURZUKOV 1994 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 22/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.50 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 00.15 a.m. on 28/07/2019; the applicant spent 5 hours in a police van before having been brought to the police station;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 22/10/2019. 4,000   27977/20 25/06/2020 Mikhail Igorevich ROSHCHIN 1994 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000   26/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.30 p.m. to 9.50 p.m. on 27/07/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 02/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019. 4,000   28314/20 03/07/2020 Maksim Viktorovich KRAVCHUK 1989 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 18/12/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.40 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 27/07/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 02/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/12/2019. 4,000   32080/20 23/07/2020 Dmitriy Sergeyevich MALOV 1989 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 28/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 8.15. p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 2.15 p.m. on 29/07/2019; the applicant remained in detention even after the record had been completed;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/10/2019. 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.