CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 13 avril 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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; 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 } .sB660AEFC { height:169.5pt } .s2B3E089 { height:77.25pt } .s21DBC676 { height:136.75pt } .s96922423 { height:105.2pt } .sD94DD0F6 { height:225.4pt } .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 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF UVARKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 70089/12 and 40 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 April 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Uvarkina and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Anja Seibert-Fohr , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 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 participants of public assemblies. They 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. jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and participants 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. 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 due regard to the issue of compliance with the six-month period 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”. 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.     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. 13 .     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 61-65, 13 February 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to administrative escorting to and detention in a police station beyond three hours without any justification; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016, related to the absence of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings governed by the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”); Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7   February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-91, 10   April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, related to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 15.     Firstly, the Court considers that, in view of its findings in paragraphs   11 and 13 above, there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. 16.     Furthermore, the Court has examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants 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. 17.     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 18.     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.” 19.     Having regard to the nature of the complaint raised by Mr Ishutin in application no. 70440/17, the Court considers that the finding of a violation, triggering the respondent State’s obligation to take measures aimed at ensuring the respect of the right to freedom of assembly indicated in the judgment of Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, §§   27-29, 27 November 2018, constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in that case (see, for a similar approach, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26624/15 and 76 others, § 18, 16 January 2020, Zverev and   Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26363/18 and 2 others, § 15, 7 July 2022, and Taratunin and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 2051/18 and 4 others, § 14, 28 July 2022) 20.     As to the remaining applicants, 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; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022; 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,   finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 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 the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds that the finding of the violation of Article 11 in respect of Mr   Ishutin in application no. 70440/17 constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 13 April 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events) 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 Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     70089/12 06/10/2012   and   11801/18 16/02/2018     Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA 1975 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou Protest against the results of 2011 Parliamentary elections Syktyvkar   10/12/2011     Anti-corruption rally Syktyvkar   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO                 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 500                 administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 18/07/2013           Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 16/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO.     3,500     14146/14 31/01/2014   and   17361/19 18/03/2019 Aleksey Nikolayevich ZHITNIKOV 1978 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow   Rally in support of the “March of Millions” Perm   12/06/2013   Rally against the pension reform Perm   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000           administrative detention of 15 days Perm Regional Court 01/08/2013       Perm Regional Court 18/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 09/09/2018 at 6.40 p.m. the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   6.1 of CAO;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately on 10/09/2018, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     52481/17 08/07/2017   and   74992/17 19/09/2017 Irina Aleksandrovna YATSENKO 1981 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Political rally Moscow   25/08/2016     “Readings of the Russian Constitution” Moscow   12/09/2016   “Readings of the Russian Constitution” Moscow   12/05/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 15,000         administrative fine of RUB 10,000           administrative fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 16/01/2017       Moscow City Court 24/03/2017         Moscow City Court 26/10/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO (events of 12/09/2016 and 12/05/2017);   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 12/09/2016 and 12/05/2017 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art.   27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity. 4,000     69791/17 20/09/2017 Raushan Faizovich VALIULLIN 1984 Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Anti-corruption rally Naberezhnye Chelny   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 16/08/2017   3,500     70440/17 07/09/2017 Kirill Dmitriyevich NIKOLENKO 1989       Kirill Valeryevich ISHUTIN 1984   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anti-corruption rally Vladimir (Mr Nikolenko)   12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO (Mr Nikolenko)   administrative fine of RUB 25,000 (Mr Nikolenko)   Vladimir Regional Court 02/08/2017 (Mr Nikolenko)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 §   2 of CAO in respect of Mr Nikolenko;   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - local administration’s refusal to approve the opposition march on 29/04/2017 organised by Mr Nikolenko and Mr Ishutin (final decision Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 22/02/2018). 3,500 (Mr Nikolenko)     70491/17 07/09/2017   and   21716/19 08/04/2019 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TETERIN 1979 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow   and   Akhtyamova Chulpan Salavatovna Kazan Anti-corruption rally Naberezhnye Chelny   26/03/2017   Rally against the pension reform Naberezhnye Chelny   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000           administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 07/06/2017     Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 17/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 §   1 of CAO;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 09/09/2018 and 18/09/2018 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity. 4,000     4522/18 25/12/2017 Maksim Sergeyevich TERESHKIN 1984 Sidelnikova Polina Aleksandrovna Vladivistok Anti-corruption rally Vladivostok   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 28/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO.   3,500     4552/18 12/01/2018 Andrey Sergeyevich MELKHOV 1988   Vladimir Valeryevich SOLDATOV 1990 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou Anti-corruption rally Ukhta   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 5,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 12/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 26/03/2017 the applicants were taken to the police station as administrative suspects: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspects’ identity; detention from 2.25 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. (Mr Melkhov) and from 2.25 p.m. to 7.25 p.m. (Mr Soldatov) with no justification;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000 (Mr Melkhov)   4,000 (Mr Soldatov)     4847/18 17/01/2018 Anton Borisovich RASIN 1989 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption rally Vladivostok   12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 23/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO. 3,500   5195/18 17/01/2018 Mariya Igorevna ZINCHENKO 1990 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption rally Vladivostok   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 02/08/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - on 26/03/2017 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000   5327/18 08/01/2018   and   7933/19 25/01/2019 Vyacheslav Ilyich GIMADI 1985 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow   and   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anti-corruption rally Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 18/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO;   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events – Moscow city administration’s numerous refusals to approve public meetings with A. Navalnyy in Pushkinskaya Square in Moscow between 30/09/2017 and 16/12/2017 (final decisions were given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 14/09/2018, 04/10/2018, 05/10/2018, 18/10/2018, 26/10/2018; 23/11/2018 and 12/12/2018). 3,500   7861/18 10/01/2018 Maksim Anatolyevich RAZMETOV 1967     Political march St Petersburg   29/04/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 27/06/2017 (copy received on 20/07/2017) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO. 3,500   11830/18 02/03/2018 Radislav Rafailovich FEDOROV 1983 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption rally Naberezhnye Chelny   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 13/09/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO. 3,500   24202/18 08/05/2018 Yuriy Yuryevich VOLOBUYEV 1968 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Political rally Smolensk   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO   administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Smolensk Regional Court 14/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   2 of CAO.   3,500   28408/18 30/05/2018 Maksim Dmitriyevich SOLODNIKOV 1998 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Political rally Perm   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community work of 20 hours Perm Regional Court 30/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO.   3,500   30475/18 14/06/2018   and   8274/20 21/01/2020 Mikhail Mikhaylovich SILICH 1938 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow Political rally Moscow   08/10/2017     Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   administrative fine of RUB 2,000         administrative fine of RUB 5,000 Moscow City Court 16/03/2018       Moscow City Court 24/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO.   3,500   35074/18 12/07/2018 Irina Alekseyevna ILYINA 1961 Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow Political rally Moscow   14/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 12/01/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - on 14/06/2017 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000   37025/18 25/07/2018 Konstantin Matveyevich SALTYKOV 1998 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of A. Navalnyy “Strike of voters” Moscow   28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO and Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 30 days and administrative detention of 15 days Moscow City Court 08/02/2018 (two decisions)       Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 28/01/2018 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; detention at the police station from 2.40 p.m. on 28/01/2018 to 1.20 p.m. on 29/01/2018 with no justification; the record of administrative arrest was compiled only eight hours after the applicant’s arrest and escorting to the police station;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO and under Article 19.3 §   1 of CAO. 5,000   41140/18 25/07/2018 Anton Sergeyevich GRACHEV 1980     Political rally Gatchina, Leningrad Region   09/03/2018 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 5 days Leningrad Regional Court 20/03/2018                 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 §   2 of CAO;   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - local administration’s refusal to approve the locations and dates of political rallies on 07/10/2017 and 08/10/2017 (final decision Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 15/08/2018). 5,000   50045/18 10/10/2018 Semen Sergeyevich LASKIN 1990 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Political rally “He is not our tsar” Voronezh   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000   Voronezh Regional Court 26/06/2018   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO;   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - local administration’s refusal to approve the location and date of the political rally “Strike of voters” on 28/01/2018 (final decision by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 25/05/2018). 3,500   50624/18 10/10/2018 Nikita Olegovich RYAZHSKIKH 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Political rally “He is not our tsar” Voronezh   05/05/2018         Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         administrative fine of RUB 10,000             Voronezh Regional Court 04/06/2018               Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO;   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - local administration’s refusals to approve the locations and dates of four public events planned between 10/11/2017 and 25/11/2017 (final decisions were given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 23/07/2018 and 18/09/2018). 3,500   56385/18 17/11/2018 Aleksandra Andreyevna SHINKAREVA 1998 Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Political rally “He is not our tsar” Irkutsk   05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO community work of 50 hours Irkutsk Regional Court 18/07/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   3 of CAO. 3,500   11398/19 15/02/2019   and   52155/19 20/09/2019   and   9303/20 31/01/2020   and   30159/20 21/05/2019 Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV 1988 Zamyatin Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Berlin   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius   Los Vladlen Kornelevich Vilnius Rally against the pension reform Moscow 09/09/2018     Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow   14/07/2019     Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow   27/07/2019   Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO         Article 20.2 §   2 of CAO             Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO   administrative fine of RUB 250,000         administrative fine of RUB   25,000             administrative detention of 15 days   Moscow City Court 12/04/2019       Moscow City Court 26/02/2020           Moscow City Court 02/08/2019   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 25/10/2018 and 27/07/2019 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; detention at the police station from 9.25 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 8.30 p.m. on 29/07/2019 with no justification;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 §   2, Article 20.2 §   6.1 and Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO;   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events – Moscow City administration’s refusals to approve the locations and dates of five public meetings with A. Navalnyy planned between 29/09/2017 and 06/11/2017 (final decisions were given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 24/08/2018, 27/08/2018, 17/09/2018 and 23/11/2018). 7,000   18503/19 21/03/2019 Timur Kamalutdinovich RASULOV 1998 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg “Disappearing Constitution” protest St Petersburg   10/10/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO community work of 100 hours St Petersburg City Court 29/01/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   8 of CAO. 3,500   22911/19 10/04/2019 Illarion Yevgenyevich LITVINOV 1994 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally against the pension reform Vladivostok   01/07/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 24/12/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 28/07/2018 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000   22914/19 10/04/2019 Tatyana Yuryevna KHARDINA 2000 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally against the pension reform Vladivostok   01/07/2018     Rally against the pension reform Vladivostok   09/09/2018     Rally against the pension reform Vladivostok   15/09/2018   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000           administrative fine of RUB 10,000           administrative fine of RUB 5,000     Primorye Regional Court 27/11/2018       Primorye Regional Court 09/01/2019       Primorye Regional Court 15/11/2018   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 04/07/2018 at 1.50 p.m. and on 15/09/2018 at 2.10 p.m. the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; detention in the police station from 3   p.m. on 15/09/2018 to 2.10 p.m. on 17/09/2018 with no justification;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO. 5,000   6929/20 14/01/2020 Ivan Mikhaylovich ZVYAGIN 1992 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi “Monstration” public event Kursk   01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Kursk Regional Court 13/08/2019   3,500   6955/20 14/01/2020 Sergey Vladimirovich BAZHENOV 1969 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi “Monstration” public event Kursk   01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Kursk Regional Court 20/08/2019   3,500   6957/20 14/01/2020 Nadezhda Igorevna KOLYCHEVA 1991 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi “Monstration” public event Kursk   01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Kursk Regional Court 27/08/2019   3,500   6962/20 14/01/2020 Yelena Vladimirovna VETROVA 1972 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi “Monstration” public event Kursk   01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Kursk Regional Court 13/08/2019   3,500   38358/20 22/07/2020 Petr Ivanovich KIKILYK 1944 Ruchko Irina Yuryevna Yekaterinburg Political rally Degtyarsk, Sverdlovsk Region   13/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 23/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 13/07/2019 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; detention from 3.30 p.m. on 13/07/2019 to 11.45 a.m. on 14/07/2019 with no justification;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   2 of CAO. 4,000   38452/20 18/06/2020 Matvey Alekseyevich ALEKSANDROV 2000 Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Political rally Moscow   13/10/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 18/12/2019   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 13/10/2019 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.