CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 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 } .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 } .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 } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; 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 } .s34F9B7ED { height:140.65pt } .s1A4A6575 { height:33.15pt } .sCDF4D88E { height:65.35pt } .s77EA97F4 { height:177.3pt } .sF4F7263B { height:25.5pt } .sC9AE26CC { height:125.9pt } .s5C017BDB { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt; font-weight:bold } .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 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RODIONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 579/19 and 61 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 20 April 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rodionov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 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 nationwide protests that took place in various Russian cities on 5   May 2018 before Vladimir   Putin’s inauguration for the fourth presidential term. The 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, 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.     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 facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under 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 (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 20 April 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   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 Location   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]     579/19 10/12/2018 Yuriy Anatolyevich RODIONOV 2000 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Voronezh     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 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 date and location of the rally on 05/05/2018 in Voronezh planned by the applicant (notification procedure, final decision: Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 04/09/2018). 3,500     1485/19 14/12/2018 Olga PEROVA 1994 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Cheboksary     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 19/07/2018 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 §   5 of CAO. 3,500     1529/19 14/12/2018 Vasiliy KERIMOV 1987 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Cheboksary     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 17/07/2018 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 §   5 of CAO. 3,500     2545/19 13/12/2018 Nikolay Alekseyevich KUTUZOV 1990 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 26/06/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000     2645/19 24/12/2018 Georgiy Sergeyevich KRAYNEV 1992 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Togliatti     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 03/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000     2823/19 26/12/2018 Igor Mikhaylovich ZHURAVLEV 1962 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Kaluga     Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Kaluga Regional Court 10/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 §   1 of CAO. 4,000     2898/19 25/12/2018 Vyachslav Dmitriyevich SIZOV 1994 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Novokuznetsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kemerovo Regional Court 25/06/2018 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. 3,500     3598/19 02/01/2019 Roman Olegovich SEMEYKO 1995 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow Moscow     Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 Moscow City Court 02/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO. 4,000     3831/19 29/12/2018 Kirill Vladislavovich TIMCHENKO 1996 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Krasnodar     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 11/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO. 4,000   3843/19 29/12/2018 Vilen Nikolayevich DEMIN 1997 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Krasnodar     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000   detention of 1 day Krasnodar Regional Court 03/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO. 4,000   3853/19 29/12/2018 Andrey Borisovich YAKIMOV 1996 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Krasnodar     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000   fine of RUB   500 Krasnodar Regional Court 10/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO. 4,000   4078/19 06/12/2018 Karina Aleksandrovna KUPRIYANOVA 1995 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 15/08/2018 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. 3,500   4080/19 06/12/2018 Anton Sergeyevich PEREKOPSKIY 1999 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 03/10/2018 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. 3,500   4484/19 03/01/2019 Sergey Borisovich MELNIKOV 1977 Charskiy Vladimir Valentinovich Saratov Saratov     Article 20.2 §   6.1 CAO detention of 2 days Saratov Regional Court 03/07/2018   4,000   5159/19 15/01/2019 Sergey Alekseyevich SKVORTSOV 1996 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Kostroma     Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Kostroma Regional Court 17/07/2018 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   5322/19 26/12/2018 Vladimir Yevgenyevich ARZHANOV 1998 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Novokuznetsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kemerovo Regional Court 27/06/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000   5363/19 06/12/2018 Viktoriya Olegovna SHAT 1999 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 17/10/2018 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. 3,500   5654/19 28/12/2018 Ilya Vladislavovich CHUMAKOV 1998 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention of 5 days Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 05/07/2018 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 §   8 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 court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   5857/19 15/01/2019 Aleksandr Yuryevich PESKOV 1996 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Arkhangelsk     Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 17/07/2018 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 §   1 of CAO. 3,500   6360/19 14/01/2019 German Aleksandrovich KOBYCHEV 1998 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; detention at the police station for more than 3 hours: from 6.25   p.m. to 10.09 p.m. 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   6391/19 21/01/2019 Pavel Vladimirovich KRASILNIKOV 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Vladimir     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Vladimir Regional Court 04/09/2018 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. 3,500   6423/19 11/01/2019 Grigoriy Leonidovich GIRA 1984 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow Ukhta     Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 11/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 §   1 of CAO. 4,000   6546/19 21/01/2019 Maksimilian Sergeyevich RUBLEV 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Vladimir     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Vladimir Regional Court 11/09/2018 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. 3,500   6562/19 21/01/2019 Maksim Vasilyevich PLYUSNIN 1982 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 28/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000   6568/19 21/01/2019 Yegor Dmitriyevich KAZARINOV 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Vladimir     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Vladimir Regional Court 11/09/2018 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. 3,500   6647/19 21/01/2019 Oleg Vadimovich PESTRIKOV 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; detention in excess of 3 hours: from 3.10 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 10.10 a.m. on 07/05/2018 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 §   6.1 of CAO. 4,000   11010/19 15/02/2019 Aleksey Nikolayevich USOV 1990 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 16/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; detention in excess of 3 hours: from 7   p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 7   a.m. on 06/05/2018 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   11250/19 14/02/2019 Vadim Nikolayevich VERESHCHAGIN 1993 Chervonnyy Grigoriy Sergeyevich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO     fine of RUB   15,000     Moscow City Court 20/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; detention in excess of 3 hours from 5.50   p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 5.30 p.m. on 07/05/2018 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   11308/19 17/01/2019 Mikhail Mikhaylovich FEDOROV 1999 Charskiy Vladimir Valentinovich Saratov Saratov     Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Saratov Regional Court 17/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; detention in excess of 3 hours: from 5.55   p.m. on 01/07/2018 to 11.15 a.m. on 02/07/2018 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 §   6.1 of CAO. 4,000   11672/19 20/02/2019 Ruslan Andreyevich STARIKOVSKIY 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Kostroma     Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Kostroma Regional Court 10/10/2018 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 §   6.1 of CAO. 3,500   13617/19 22/02/2019 Vladimir Aleksandrovich BULATOV 1985 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou Kirov     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kirov Regional Court 23/08/2018 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. 3,500   13627/19 17/02/2019 Danil Valeryevich BOLSHAKOV 1992 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community work of 35   hours Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 23/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000   13776/19 17/02/2019 Yuriy Mamukayevich ORESHNIKOV 1999 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 18/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO. 4,000   16178/19 12/03/2019 Viktor Yevgenyevich KOZLENKO 1997 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community work of 30   hours Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/09/2018 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. 3,500   16241/19 05/03/2019 Yevgeniy Yuryevich MIROSHNIK 1987 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg St Petersburg Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 06/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; detention at the police station from 6.30 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 5.15 a.m. on 06/05/2018 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   16614/19 11/03/2019 Stanislav Viktorovich RUDKOVSKIY 1989 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/09/2018 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. 3,500   17163/19 20/03/2019 Ivan Nikolayevich BOYKOV 1991 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 20/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; detention at the police station in excess of 3 hours: from 7 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 5.11 a.m. on 06/05/2018 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   19485/19 02/04/2019 Kirill Yuryevich AFONIN 1997 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 Moscow City Court 28/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 19.3 §   1 of CAO. 4,000   19710/19 01/04/2019 Anton Anatolyevich LYSENKO 2000 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 Moscow City Court 14/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; detention at the police station in excess of 3 hours: from 7.50 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 3.20 a.m. on 06/05/2018 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 19.3 §   1 of CAO. 4,000   19752/19 01/04/2019 Sofya Gyrmayevna KASSAYE 1979 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 Moscow City Court 20/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 19.3 §   1 of CAO. 4,000   19796/19 01/04/2019 Ilya Ilyich LATOKHIN 1999 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. 4,000   19798/19 01/04/2019 Georgiy Pavlovich NEKRASOV 1992 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Smolensk     Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Smolensk Regional Court 24/10/2018 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. 3,500   19841/19 02/04/2019 Vladislav Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV 1969 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 20/11/2018 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. 3,500   19853/19 02/04/2019 Aleksey Eduardovich PARTOLIN 2000 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. 4,000   19954/19 02/04/2019 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ALYABYEV 1986 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 06/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. 4,000   20051/19 01/04/2019 Aleksey Maksimovich CHEREDNICHENKO 1995 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 08/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; detention at the police station in excess of 3 hours: from 3 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 9.53 a.m. on 07/05/2018 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 §   6.1 of CAO. 4,000   20275/19 02/04/2019 Vsevolod Aleksandrovich KVASHNIN 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 23/10/2018 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 § 1 of CAO. 3,500   20429/19 02/04/2019 Aleksandr Sergeyevich SAKHAROV 1991 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. 4,000   20461/19 21/03/2019 Lev Yevgenyevich GYAMMER 2000 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Novokuznetsk     Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kemerovo Regional Court 14/01/2019 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 § 1 of CAO. 3,500   20987/19 01/04/2019 Dmitriy Dmitriyevich KOZHANOV 1996 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Perm     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 07/11/2018 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. 3,500   21180/19 01/04/2019 Daniil Yevgenyevich POLIANCHIK 1987 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 Moscow City Court 20/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 19.3 §   1 of CAO. 4,000   21959/19 02/04/2019 Viktor Valeryevich NIKOLAYEV 1979 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 28/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. 4,000   24850/19 16/04/2019 Aleksandra Sergeyevna MURAVYEVA 1989 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 18/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. 4,000   25172/19 18/04/2019 Sergey Anatolyevich POLYAKOV 1971 Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 04/02/2019 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 § 5 of CAO. 3,500   26229/19 30/04/2019 Polina Alekseyevna APANOVICH 1999 Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 30/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. 4,000   27789/19 14/05/2019 Natalya Igorevna ANDREYEVA 2000 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 15/11/2018   3,500   28353/19 06/05/2019 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich YEGOROV 1995 Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna Kazan Kazan     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 07/11/2018 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. 3,500   28965/19 06/05/2019 Vadim Markovich BRAYNIN 1974     Saratov     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Saratov Regional Court 15/11/2018 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. 3,500   31664/19 28/05/2019 Anton Sergeyevich KIRGIZOV 1994 Balog Natalya Andreyevna Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 29/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. 4,000   32092/19 28/05/2019 Mikhail Ivanovich KUZNETSOV 1978 Charskiy Vladimir Valentinovich Saratov Saratov     Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention of 2   days Saratov Regional Court 29/11/2018 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 §   6.1 of CAO. 5,000   32937/19 13/06/2019 Nikita Sergeyevich FOMICHEV 1999 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 28/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 05/05/2018 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 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 under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO. 4,000   34126/19 19/06/2019 Valeriya Aleksandrovna IOVA 1986 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 20/12/2018 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. 3,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.