CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; 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 } .sE485C652 { height:125.7pt } .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 } .sA48B0570 { height:294.05pt } .s92D7E7A1 { height:294.2pt } .sC45FE089 { height:75.85pt } .sF329089D { height:81.1pt } .s763A4627 { height:60.3pt } .s2936C676 { height:166.75pt } .s2316CF3B { height:173.55pt } .sF2C6089D { height:81.2pt } .s968CF4F3 { height:194.45pt } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sA034E78A { height:17.8pt } .s59082404 { height:164.2pt } .sCCAAD88E { height:60.05pt } .sED4CC614 { height:173.7pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s920E2D92 { height:179.85pt } .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 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF BOGDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2984/20 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 March 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bogdanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 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 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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 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. 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 case. 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.     Some 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 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, 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); and 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.     Some of 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. 14.     In applications nos.   13238/20, 24896/20, 26610/20 and 27289/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 15.     The Court has examined these 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. 16.     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 17.     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.” 18.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 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 under Article   11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Article   6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of applications nos.   13238/20, 24896/20, 26610/20 and 27289/20 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the public assembly; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols 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 30 March 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   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 Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1]     2984/20 11/12/2019 Vasiliy Borisovich BOGDANOV 1990 Savelyev Anton Alekseyevich Domodedovo Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 12/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 (two consecutive administrative arrest records of 27/07 and 28/07/2019) as administrative suspect “for a timely and correct examination of the case”: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under the CAO, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 12/09/2019 4,000     9278/20 31/01/2020 Aleksandr Alekseyevich KUKIN 1992 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 7   days Moscow City Court 01/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no evidence/ assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period (the administrative offence record compiled on 29/07/2019);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 01/08/2019;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 30/07/2019 by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     11628/20 05/02/2020 Anton Igorevich CHAPARIN 1995 Balog Natalya Andreyevna Krasnoyarsk Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days Moscow City Court 06/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 27/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 06/08/2019;   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 on 29/07/2019 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     13001/20 27/02/2020 Andrey Mikhaylovich MALYKH 1989     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for a “full and correct consideration of the case”, beyond a beyond the three-hour statutory period and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019, in the absence of any “exceptional circumstances”;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court on 30/08/2019 4,000     13234/20 21/02/2020 Aleksey Orionovich IVANOV 1990 Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 3,500     13236/20 21/02/2020 Irina Alekseyevna ASHEVSKAYA 1968 Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 06/11/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 06/11/2019     3,500     13238/20 21/02/2020 Maksim Timurovich CHUNGULBAYEV 1995 Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   18,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2019   3,500     14310/20 22/01/2020 Viktor Anatolyevich SHENDEROVICH 1958 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 8.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 and 4.30   a.m. on 28/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, no evidence/assessment of any “exceptional circumstances”;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 04/09/2019 4,000     24893/20 22/06/2020 Aleksey Vladimirovich UCHAYEV 1992 Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Tverskaya str., Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 26/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence - no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 26/09/2019 4,000   24896/20 22/06/2020 Olga Stanislavovna VINOGRADOVA 1959 Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Strastnoy boulevard, Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 24/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 24/09/2019   3,500   24902/20 22/06/2020 Artem Andreyevich PYLAYEV 1976 Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - unlawful arrest, escorting and detention from 27/07/2019 to 29/07/2019 at the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an administrative-offence record, without any “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 4,000   25001/20 27/02/2020 Anastasiya Dmitriyevna MARINA 1997     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, detention from 27/07/2019 to 29/07/2019 at the police station as an administrative suspect for a “full and correct examination of the case”, without any “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 30/08/2019 4,000   25008/20 27/02/2020 Pavel Nikolayevich KOSTENKO 1988     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting and detention from 27/07/2019 to 29/07/2019 at the police station as an administrative suspect for drawing up of the administrative offence record, without any “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant remained in detention after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 30/08/2019 4,000   25980/20 23/03/2020 Balaram Dmitriyevich USOV 1999 Zamyatin Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Berlin Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police office for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 27/07/2019: no evidence / assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 26/09/2019 4,000   26052/20 25/03/2020 Nikolay Andreyevich ANSHOV 2000 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 14/10/2019 3,500   26311/20 25/03/2020 Maksim Vladimirovich VOLKOV 1981 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 2.17 p.m. and 6.50 p.m. on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 26/09/2019 4,000     26610/20 05/06/2020 Sergey Vladimirovich AFONIN 1984 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 24/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence - no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO 4,000   26860/20 16/04/2020 Artem Vladimirovich ILYUKHIN 1999 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow, Bolshaya Dmitrovka street   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000   Moscow City Court 16/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 16/10/2019 4,000   27289/20 11/06/2020 Dmitriy Vladimirovich GILEV 1994 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 28/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence - no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO 4,000   27714/20 25/03/2020 Levon Arturovich GRIGORYAN 1993 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court on 16/10/2019 4,000   27746/20 18/06/2020 Semen Vladimirovich KOLOSOV 1991 Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, detention; in excess of three hours   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 4,000   27753/20 18/06/2020 Vladimir Pavlovich BELYKH 1982 Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no evidence /assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record was compiled at 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 administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court 26/11/2019   4,000   28560/20 09/06/2020 Dzhabir Ibragimovich IBRAGIMOV 1970 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; no evidence /assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record was compiled on 27/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 14/10/2019 4,000   28563/20 09/06/2020 Arlen Remziyevich BEKIROV 1996 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2919 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 08/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no evidence /assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record was compiled at 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 administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 08/11/2019 4,000   28565/20 09/06/2020 Anton Sergeyevich TIMOFEYEV 1987 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no evidence/ assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record was compiled on 27/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 14/10/2019 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.