CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 27 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s4817FE66 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.75pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s3A97705A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s38DA119B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.8pt; text-align:justify } .sEAF98D1B { width:7.13pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .sF5735834 { width:12.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6E24AFEB { width:129.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .sF6BB43C6 { margin-left:23.5pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s7C065FE0 { width:0.68pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s933489E5 { margin-left:17.32pt; text-align:center; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s5D649A2F { margin-left:21.77pt; text-align:center; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF ZOLOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 23893/15 and 32 others – see appended list)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 April 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zolotova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 April 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 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 participants or organisers of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 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, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Smadikov v. Russia   (dec.), no. 10810/15, 31 January 2017) 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 and 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; Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§   34-36, 8 October 2019; and Teslenko and Others v.   Russia , nos.   49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 72-74 and 81-82, 5   April 2022, 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 absence of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); and Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 62-65, concerning the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings. 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, the Court has examined other complaints raised in application no.   73802/17 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 they must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 16.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; 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 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 application no.   73802/17 inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case ‑ law of the Court (see the 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 27 April 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   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]   23893/15 03/05/2015 Yelena Vladimirovna ZOLOTOVA 1968     Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 14/09/2014 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 18,000 Moscow City Court 04/12/2014   3,500   64088/16 28/10/2016 (5 applicants) Mikhail Vladimirovich AKSARIN 1980   Ivan Anatolyevich KARAMNOV 1988   Aleksandra Mikhaylovna LAVROVA 1985   Kseniya Anatolyevna TRETYUKHINA 1991 Marina Samuelovna SHEBELYAN 1989 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi "Moving exhibition Ne mir” Moscow, 13/03/2016     Karamnov, Lavrova and Tretyukhina   Shebelyan     Aksarin             Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             fine of RUB 10,000   fine of RUB 10,000   fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court:         20/05/2016     22/06/2016     06/07/2016 For each applicant:   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 13/03/2016 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling offence reports,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000, to each applicant   2665/17 27/12/2016 Andrey Mikhaylovich BAZHUTIN 1971   Arkadiy Anatolyevich MOSHNIKOV 1962 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally against a road ‑ tax system "Platon"   Rostov-on-Don, 24/08/2016 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 to each applicant Voronezh Regional Court 10/10/2016   3,500, to each applicant   69342/17 22/08/2017 Mikhail Andreyevich PCHELIN 1990 Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich Sochi Anticorruption rally   Sochi, 26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 05/05/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   73802/17 07/09/2017 Oleg Borisovich KABATOV 1974 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg, 12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 500   fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 18/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12 ‑ 13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after 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   79030/17 09/11/2017     28723/18 07/06/2018 Aleksandr Iosifovich DEGTYAREV 1951   Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Rostov-on-Don, 26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Rostov Regional Court 19/05/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases 5,600   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A. Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don, 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 150,000 Rostov Regional Court 07/12/2017   79232/17 09/11/2017     6089/18 27/12/2017 Vladimir Aleksandrovich TERENTYEV 1977   Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Gatchina, 26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Leningrad Regional Court 31/05/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases 3,500     - Event for collecting petitions to the Russian President   St Petersburg, 29/04/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 27/06/2017   82860/17 30/11/2017     25320/20 23/06/2020 Illarion Gennadyevich BORTS 1985   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow   Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 02/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 and 27/07/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports (in application no. 25320/20 - the report was then compiled on 30/07/2019 only),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases 4,000   Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow, 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000   Moscow City Court 26/09/2019   3646/18 22/12/2017 Mariya Davidovna MOLDAVSKAYA 1970 Chertkov Andrey Veniaminovich St Petersburg Opposition rally   St Petersburg, 29/04/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 500   fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 27/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 29 ‑ 30/04/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - Final decision in both sets of the proceedings - 27/06/2017, St   Petersburg City Court; Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution and punishment in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings 4,000   3649/18 12/12/2017 Dmitriy Sergeyevich MIKHEYEV 1972 Golubok Sergey Aleksandrovich The Hague Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg, 12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 1 day of detention   fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 27/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12 ‑ 13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports,   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 proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - Final decision in both set of proceedings - 27/06/2017, St   Petersburg City Court; Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution and punishment in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings 5,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage;   850, in respect of legal costs, to be paid directly to the representative, S.   Golubok   3673/18 08/01/2018 Emil Vasifovich ABDULOV 1996 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg, 12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 500   fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 27/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12 ‑ 13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after 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   5155/18 08/01/2018 Rasul Rafikovich ABDULIN 1992 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 12/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to a police station 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   8780/18 02/02/2018 Kirill Aleksandrovich MUKAYEV 1991 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 14/08/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26 ‑ 27/03/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after 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   9368/18 16/02/2018 Georgiush Ryza KASHAKHI 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 16/08/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station 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   21407/18 23/04/2018       39979/18 09/08/2018 Irina Petrovna YEPIFANOVSKAYA 1955   Prikhodina Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna Moscow   Rally against political persecution   Moscow, 30/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of 10,000 RUB Moscow City Court 24/10/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 30/06/2017 and 02/07/2017 escorting to and detention a police station for compiling offence reports,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases 4,000   Assembly to support Y.   Dmitriyev   Moscow, 02/07/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Moscow City Court 16/02/2018   22814/18 30/04/2018     14296/20 22/01/2020 Nikita Dmitriyevich ROMANOV 1988   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi   Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 08/02/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 and 27/07/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both cases 4,000   Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow, 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 06/11/2019   28164/18 04/06/2018 Andrey Borisovich AZHIMOV 1988 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 04/12/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to and detention a police station 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   29959/18 15/06/2018 Artem Vasilyevich VOYTENKO 1983 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   Bryansk, 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Bryansk Regional Court 15/12/2017   3,500   33002/18 09/07/2018 Arsen Aleksandrovich ULLUBIEV 1985 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 24/01/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   33140/18 03/07/2018 Mikhail Vladimirovich STEPANETS 1978 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 12/01/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   39277/18 07/08/2018 Arina Andreyevna MESHCHERYAKOVA 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius “Voters’ Strike” rally   Volgograd, 28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 07/02/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   42072/18 24/08/2018 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich FOKANOV 1991 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius “Voters’ Strike” rally   Volgograd, 28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 01/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   42080/18 24/08/2018 Yelena Aleksandrovna KOTENOCHKINA 1977 Prikhodina Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna Moscow Assembly to support Y.   Dmitriyev   Moscow, 02/07/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 16/03/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 02/07/2017 escorting to a police station 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   43667/18 03/09/2018 Alexandr Gershovich CHERNYY 1950 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 06/03/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to a police station 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   45692/18 06/09/2018 Aleksandr Vladislavovich ZHUKOV 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Perm, 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Perm Regional Court 14/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   45710/18 22/09/2018 Vladimir Igorevich VINICHENKO 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 22/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   49552/18 11/10/2018 Oleg Viktorovich POLYAKOV 1983 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius “Voters’ Strike” rally   Volgograd, 28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 11/04/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   7369/19 28/01/2019 Aleksey Vladimirovich NEBESNYY 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/06/2017 escorting to a police station 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   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.