CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 mai 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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF PUZANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 3669/18 and 29 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG 11 May 2023 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Puzanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 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. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as 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, 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 the 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 prompt 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 a 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; and Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the CAO. 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     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, and 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; Holds that there has been a violation of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 11 May 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case ‑ law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     3669/18 08/01/2018 Aleksandr Viktorovich PUZANOV 1995 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 3,000 St Petersburg City Court 13/07/2017 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 – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 4,000     3670/18 08/01/2018 Kirill Vyacheslavovich NIKITIN 1998 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 13/07/2017 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 – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 4,000     3690/18 08/01/2018 German Aleksandrovich GORELIK 1967 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 13/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12-14/06/2017 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 – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 4,000     4025/18 08/01/2018 Sergey Leonidovich PODUSHKOV 1965 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 3,000 St Petersburg City Court 20/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12-14/06/2017 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 – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 4,000     4028/18 08/01/2018 Ivan Ivanovich DRAGOMILOV 1990 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 12-14/06/2017 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 – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 4,000     4820/18 12/01/2018 Vladimir Aleksandrovich FEDIN 1990 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg, 26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 13/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     4904/18 17/01/2018 Artem Valeryevich SOLOMKIN 1990 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 1,000   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 offence reports,   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     5277/18 08/01/2018 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PYRYAYEV 1945 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 11/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12-13/06/2017 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 – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 4,000     6428/18 10/01/2018 Artem Valentinovich MISHCHENKO 1995 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius 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 11/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 3,500   7226/18 10/01/2018 Svetlana Ivanovna SAKHAROVA 1966 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg, 12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 1,000   fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 11/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 3,500   7571/18 12/01/2018 Yuliya Igorevna SAVELYEVA 1994 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg, 26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 13/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   7628/18 10/01/2018 Kirill Alekseyevich KHROMOV 1989 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius 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 5,000 St Petersburg City Court 11/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 3,500   7748/18 10/01/2018 Dmitriy Vladimirovich MALYUGA 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg, 12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 1,000   fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 11/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – under Article   20.2 § 5 of CAO 3,500   8177/18 09/01/2018 Yuriy Mikhaylovich VASILYEV 1996 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg 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. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   29140/18 07/06/2018 Vladimir Viktorovich SYTNIK 1967 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anticorruption rally   Rostov-on-Don, 07/10/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 3 days of detention Rostov Regional Court 07/12/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   52988/18 26/10/2018 Eleonora Sergeyevna TERESHONOK 1995 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Opposition rally   St Petersburg, 05/05/2018 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 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 3,500   6679/19 21/01/2019 Anton Olegovich METELEV 1991 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Kirov, 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Kirov Regional Court 07/08/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   7628/19 21/01/2019 Natalya Nikolayevna KUPRIYANOVA 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Saratov, 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Saratov 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 3,500   7885/19 23/01/2019 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich VASILYEV 1980 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 6 days of detention St Petersburg City Court 02/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-10/09/2018 detention in a police station 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 5,000   7915/19 23/01/2019 Dmitriy Igorevich PAVLOV 1998 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 08/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-11/09/2018 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   7921/19 23/01/2019 Daniil Yaroslavovich FARADEY 1995 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 08/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-11/09/2018 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   8052/19 26/01/2019 Richard Richardovich ROUZ 1985 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Opposition rally   Kirov, 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Kirov Regional Court 18/09/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   8150/19 19/01/2019 Marat Faradovich SHABANOV 1984 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 02/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-10/09/2018 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   8244/19 21/01/2019 Mariya Dmitriyevna SIROTKINA 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   St Petersburg, 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 31/07/2018   3,500   8421/19 01/02/2019 Pavel Sergeyevich TUMENBAYEV 1988 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 St Petersburg City Court 09/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-10/09/2018 detention in a police station 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   8929/19 19/01/2019 Daniil Alekseyevich TROITSKIY 1998 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 40 hours of community work St Petersburg City Court 02/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-11/09/2018 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   8998/19 22/01/2019 Yevgeniy Borisovich KASHPIREV 1993 Yesipova Alina Vladimirovna St Petersburg Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 10 days of detention St Petersburg City Court 24/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-11/09/2018 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 5,000   15248/19 11/03/2019 Aleksandr Leonidovich KASATKIN 1992 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 St Petersburg City Court 16/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 9-10/09/2018 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   16142/19 07/03/2019 Yevgeniya Eduardovna LITVINOVA 1960 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Event against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 07/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 18/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26-27/09/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report in relation to the event on 07/09/2018,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   24478/19 30/04/2019 Eduard Viktorovich SHITIK 1961 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Event against the pension reform   St Petersburg, 07/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 21/02/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.