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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sF057D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:6pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sFF0F7D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:4pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF DIDENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 54032/17 and 26 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 Didenko 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 participants and organisers 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 and organisers of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and 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 case. 9.     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 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. 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 Butkevich v.   Russia , no.   5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10   April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8   October 2019, as to administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; Karelin v.   Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO; and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 37-43, 8   October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, there is no need to examine remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Articles   5 and 6 of the Convention. 13.     Furthermore, some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 14.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 15.     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.” 16.     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. 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 remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Articles   5 and 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention; 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. 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 and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     54032/17 17/07/2017 Irina Viktorovna DIDENKO 1994 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Volgograd   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 19/04/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report 4,000     54050/17 17/07/2017 Aleksandr Vladimirovich NOVGORODOV 1980 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 25/05/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     54076/17 17/07/2017 Mikhail Sergeyevich DIDENKO 1988 Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich Melekhovo Anticorruption rally   Volgograd   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 02/05/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report 4,000     55068/17 17/07/2017 Georgiy Vasilevich DZIMISTARISHVILI 1989 Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich Melekhovo Anticorruption rally   Rostov-on-Don   26/03/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 1 day of detention Rostov Regional Court 25/04/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 26-27/03/2017 the applicant was brought to a police station and then kept in detention after the offence report was compiled;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000     60932/17 16/08/2017 Irina Tomasovna YERMOLAYEVA 1967 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anticorruption rally   Kazan   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/05/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – detention on 29/03/2017 for more than 3 hours for compiling an offence report relating to the rally on 26/03/2017. 4,000     60939/17 16/08/2017 Ayrat Ilshatovich GARIPOV 1998 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anticorruption rally   Kazan   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/05/2017   3,500     60978/17 16/08/2017 Denis Olegovich KAYUMOV 1998 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anticorruption rally   Kazan   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/05/2017   3,500     60987/17 16/08/2017 Ivan Mikhaylovich KUZMIN 1992 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anticorruption rally   Kazan   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/05/2017   3,500     60993/17 16/08/2017 Aleksandr Vasilyevich NEBAYKIN 1987 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anticorruption rally   Kazan   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/05/2017   3,500   60998/17 16/08/2017 Vladimir Aleksandrovich SOLOVTSOV 1967 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anticorruption rally   Kazan   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/05/2017   3,500   69627/17 19/09/2017 Nadezhda Pavlovna KHALIKOVA 1997 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 29/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report. 4,000   69652/17 19/09/2017 Andrey Vitalyevich MARTIROSOV 1995 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 13/07/2017   3,500   69798/17 20/09/2017 Yuliya Damirovna SHALGALIYEVA 1990 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 06/07/2017   3,500   69942/17 07/09/2017 Mariya Sergeyevna NIZHIVENKO 1997 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Tambov   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Tambov Regional Court 15/05/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   69947/17 07/09/2017 Marat Masgodovich LATYPOV 1972 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Naberezhnye Chelny   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 28/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station and detention there on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000   69953/17 07/09/2017 Pavel Sergeyevich IVANOV 1995 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Kurgan   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Kurgan Regional Court 10/05/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station and detention there on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   69964/17 07/09/2017 Irina Yegorovna IVANOVA 1969 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Kurgan   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Kurgan Regional Court 10/05/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station and detention there on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   70011/17 07/09/2017 Svetlana Vladimirovna ABOLONINA 1985 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Volgograd   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 24/05/2017   3,500   70017/17 07/09/2017 Aleksandr Vasilyevich ABOLONIN 1983 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Volgograd   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 31/05/2017   3,500   70193/17 07/09/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich GOLYSHEV 1964 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Naberezhnye Chelny   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 21/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station and detention there on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report.   4,000   70381/17 07/09/2017 Roman Aleksandrovich ZOLOTOVITSKIY 1960 Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich Melekhovo Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 30/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   70460/17 07/09/2017 Vladislav Aleksandrovich ZAKAMOV 1993 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Khabarovsk   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 14/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   70518/17 07/09/2017 Sergey Sergeyevich IVANOV 1995 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 12 days of detention Moscow City Court 31/03/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful pre-trial detention - on 26-28/03/2017 the applicant was brought to the police station to draw up an offence record; was kept in detention after the offence report was compiled;     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention – the applicant started serving the sentence of administrative detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings do not offer suspensive effect;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.             5,000   71026/17 07/09/2017 Grigoriy Aleksandrovich PRONKOV 1989 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017   Article 20.2 § 6.1 and   Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 and   7 days of detention Moscow City Court 17/05/2017   Moscow City Court 29/03/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26-27/03/2017 the applicant, after having been brought to a police station to compile an administrative offence record, remained in detention even after the offence record had been compiled;     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal: lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against sentence of detention - the applicant started serving the sentence of administrative detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings do not offer suspensive effect;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000   71112/17 18/09/2017 Angelina Olegovna GORBACHENKO 1997 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Anticorruption rally   Krasnodar   26/03/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 1,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 06/04/2017   2,000   72015/17 25/09/2017 Sergey Mikhaylovich MAKARCHUK 1988 Katsko Vitaliy Nikolayevich Krasnodar Anticorruption rally   Krasnodar   26/03/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 15 days of detention Krasnodar Regional Court 06/04/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 26/03/2017 and detention there for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report. 5,000   79263/17 09/11/2017 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BANNIKOV 1991 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Rostov-on-Don   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Rostov Regional Court 11/05/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.