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 } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; 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 } .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 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SLASTENIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 70345/17 and 28 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 Slastenin 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. 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. 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, 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 and the Protocols thereto, 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 administrative-offence proceedings under the CAO; Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§   21-28 and 37-43, 8   October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention; Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC],   no.   9154/10, § 100 et seq., ECHR 2015; Murtazaliyeva v.   Russia [GC], no.   36658/05, § 139 et seq., 18   December 2018; Butkevich , §§   94-103, and Martynyuk , §§   21-28, both cited above, related to impossibility to question witnesses in a criminal trial (in relation to application no.   14672/20 as indicated in the appended table). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, there is no need to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. 14.     Lastly, some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 15.     The Court has examined these complaints 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 16.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 17.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, 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 these applications as they relate to 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, decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the 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 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 (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]     70345/17 07/09/2017 Nikita Alekseyevich SLASTENIN 1996 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO and article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 10 days of detention and fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 16/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12-13/06/2017 the applicant was kept in a police station after the offence reports 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,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started to serve the sentence of detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings did not offer suspensive effect 5,000     84272/17 14/12/2017 Vasiliy Vladimirovich DROBYSHEV 1977 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 5 days of detention         fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 16/06/2017       St Petersburg City Court 06/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12-13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling the offence reports,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started to serve the sentence of detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings did not offer suspensive effect 5,000     84276/17 14/12/2017 Sergey Ivanovich VASILYEV 1985 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000         5 days of detention St Petersburg City Court 04/07/2017         St Petersburg City Court 19/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12-14/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling the offence reports,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started to serve the sentence of detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings did not offer suspensive effect 5,000     3647/18 13/12/2017 Nikita Yuryevich VISSARIONOV 1995 Ratnikova Svetlana Sergeyevna St Petersburg Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 12 days of detention St Petersburg City Court 20/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 12-13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling the offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     3676/18 08/01/2018 Yekaterina Sergeyevna POZDNYAKOVA 1995 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 11/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in a police station on 12-13/06/2017 for and after compiling the offence reports,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     24336/18 08/05/2018 Andrey Vadimovich SHKILNYUK 1998 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Protest rally   Moscow   05/11/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 15 days of detention Moscow City Court 08/11/2017   5,000     24344/18 10/05/2018 Yevgeniy Georgiyevich LIN 1988 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Protest rally   Moscow   05/11/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 10 days of detention Moscow City Court 10/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     24661/18 29/04/2018 Nikolay Petrovich MIRONOV 1971 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Protest against political persecution   Tula   29/10/2017 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 8 days of detention Tula Regional Court 03/11/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 29/10/2017 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 5,000     36109/18 26/07/2018 Dmitriy Sergeyevich MERZLYAKOV 1983 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Anticorruption rally   Moscow   12/06/2017     Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000           5 days of detention Moscow City Court 30/01/2018           St Petersburg City Court 11/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 9-10/09/2018 the applicant remained detained after the offence reports 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 - in both sets of the proceedings 5,000   37029/18 06/07/2018 Dmitriy Vitalyevich PESHKOV 1995     Rally to support A. Navalnyy’s candidacy for President,   Novosibirsk   07/10/2017   Rally to support A. Navalniy and L. Volkov,   Novosibirsk   30/09/2017   Rally against the pension reform,   Novosibirsk   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000               fine of RUB 5,000             15 days of detention Novosibirsk Regional Court 16/01/2018             Novosibirsk Regional Court 16/01/2018           Novosibirsk Regional Court 20/09/2018   5,000   42836/18 21/08/2018 Ilya Sergeyevich BOLOBAN 1989 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou Photo shooting session with banners   Inta   14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 5 days of detention Supreme Court of Komi Republic 21/02/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 14/10/2017 for 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   5,000   50126/18 10/10/2018 Sergey Anatolyevich ZHOLOBOV 1998 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally against Putin’s re-election   Voronezh   05/05/2018     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000     5 days of detention Voronezh Regional Court 05/06/2018   Voronezh Regional Court 21/06/2018 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   56357/18 21/11/2018 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich SHIPANOV 1981 Zhulimov Igor Anatolyevich Penza Rally relating to the presidential election   Penza 05/05/2018   Rally against the pension reform   Penza 09/09/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 5 days of detention             fine of RUB 12,000 Penza Regional Court 22/05/2018         Penza Regional Court 14/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 14-15/09/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling the offence report concerning the rally on 09/09/2018 5,000   59767/18 06/12/2018 Lyudmila Viktorovna GRABKO 1975 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Rally of mortgage loaners   Moscow   28/11/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 06/06/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station on 28/11/2017 for 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   3838/19 29/12/2018 Stanislav Mikhaylovich CHEPACHENKO 1986 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Anticorruption rally   Krasnodar   05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 1 day of detention Krasnodar Regional Court 03/07/2018   4,000   4433/19 10/01/2019 Ivan Igorevich KUTUZOV 1987 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Vladimir   05/05/2018     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000     1 day of detention Vladimir Regional Court 02/10/2018   Vladimir Regional Court 12/07/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   12474/19 25/02/2019 Dmitriy Viktorovich OGORODNIKOV 1985 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 7 days of detention St Petersburg City Court 11/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 09-11/09/2018 the applicant remained detained after the offence report 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 5,000   18145/19 21/03/2019 Sergey Nikolayevich KOLESNIKOV 1993 Yesipova Alina Vladimirovna St Petersburg Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 9 days of detention St Petersburg City Court 24/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-11/09/2018 the applicant was kept in detention after the offence report 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 5,000   57173/19 16/10/2019 Bagaudin Mussayevich GAGIYEV 1961 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda   Nazran   27/03/2019 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO 10 days of detention Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 16/04/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention in a police station on 11/04/2019 for compiling an offence report in relation to the rally on 27/03/2019,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings EUR 5,000   60672/19 15/11/2019 Albert Magometovich BALAKHOYEV 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda   Magas   27/03/2019 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 29/05/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   62170/19 22/11/2019 Magomed-Bashir Yusupovich KATSIYEV 1964 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda   Magas   27/03/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 22/05/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   63395/19 28/11/2019 Magomed Akhmetovich NAKOSTKHOYEV 1972 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda   Magas   27/03/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 20/06/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   1661/20 13/12/2019 Murat Zelimkhanovich BEKOV 1947 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda   Magas   27/03/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 13/06/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   4314/20 26/12/2019 Savarbek Musayevich UZHAKHOV 1953 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda   Magas   27/03/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 03/07/2019   3,500   4320/20 26/12/2019 Askhap Abdurakhmanovich GOYGOV 1956 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda   Nazran   27/03/2019 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 27/06/2019   3,500   4334/20 26/12/2019 Rezvan Kureyshovich OZDOYEV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda   Magas   27/03/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 11/07/2019   3,500   6839/20 29/01/2020 Svyatoslav Sergeyevich DRUZHININ 2000 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 10 days of detention Moscow City Court 01/08/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   8660/20 22/01/2020 Ibragim Kureyshovich DUGIYEV 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda   Magas   27/03/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 24/07/2019   3,500   14672/20 09/03/2020 Ilya Anatolyevich NIKOLAYEV 1992 Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO 4 days of detention Moscow City Court 10/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 27-29/07/2019 the applicant remained in detention after the offence report 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,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court witnesses, including police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.