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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s97C4337 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s946186CC { height:1.4pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF BELONOGIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 5106/18 and 19 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 Belonogiy 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 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 of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. Some applicants also invoked Article   10; however, these complaints fall to be examined under Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey , no. 74552/01, ECHR   2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova , no. 33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts)), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia (no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit 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.     The 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.   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 its case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121 ‑ 23, 10   April 2018, Kalyapin v. Russia , no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events; Teslenko and Others v. Russia , nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 72-74 and 81-82, 5 April 2022, concerning in particular administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO); Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-215, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures against solo-demonstrators; Elvira Dmitriyeva v.   Russia , nos.   60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 74-90, 30 April 2019, concerning conviction for an administrative offence for calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event; Tsvetkova and Others , cited above, §§   179 ‑ 91, and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§   38-42, 8   October 2019, concerning lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     Having regard to its findings above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings in their cases. 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 Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 concerning the dispersal of the public assemblies and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about other aspects of the fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings; 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; Dismisses the reminder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 Charges under CAO Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (in euros) [1]     5106/18 18/01/2018       and         18722/20 30/03/2020 Denis Aleksandrovich BELONOGIY 1990 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Melburn               Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius             Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   26/03/2017         Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019       Manifestation in support to A. Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000                 fine of RUB 20,000               fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 26/07/2017               Moscow City Court 16/12/2019             Moscow City Court 03/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: 1) escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.30 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. on 26/03/2017,   2) escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, while it was not explained why the said protocol could not have been drawn on the spot: - from 3.10 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019, - from 3.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to an unspecified time;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court, 26/07/2017, 16/12/2019 and 03/08/2021   5,000     10666/19 11/02/2019 Mikhail Vladimirovich SVETOV 1985 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation against the pension reform   St Petersburg   09/09/2018     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   16/07/2019   Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO     administrative detention of 10 days             administrative detention of 30 days St   Petersburg City Court 12/09/2018             Moscow City Court 02/08/2019                 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant remained in detention even after the record of administrative offence had been drawn up: 1) from 09/09/2018 to 10/09/2018, 2) from 30/07/2019 to 31/07/2019, 3) from 24/04/2021 to 26/04/2021   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: 12/09/2018, 02/08/2019 and 30/04/2021, by the St Petersburg City Court, Moscow City Court;   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 (two counts: in 2019 and 2021);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for an administrative offence for calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event; final decision: Moscow City Court, 30/04/2021   6,000     57/20 18/12/2019 Tigran Arturovich MOVSESYAN 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.20 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.29 a.m. on 04/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/09/2019   4,000     1829/20 27/12/2019 Artem Aleksandrovich SOLOMIN 2001 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   10/08/2019     Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000             fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2019           Moscow City Court 19/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: 1) from 6.35 p.m. on 10/08/2019 to 00.25 a.m. on 11/08/2019, the time indicated in the record of the applicant’s escorting was at variance with the real time of his deprivation of liberty, while no record of the administrative arrest was drawn up, 2) from 2.40 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court 04/10/2019 and 19/08/2021   4,000     9499/20 12/02/2020 Sofya Vladimirovna MUSTETSOVA 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow,   03/08/2019 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days   Moscow City Court 12/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant spent 3 hours in a police van before having been brought to the police station, from 5.15 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 9.40 p.m. on 05/08/2019 when the applicant’s trial started;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/08/2019   5,000     10628/20 17/02/2020 Dmitriy Vitalyevich TROYANOVSKIY 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/10/2019   4,000     10844/20 05/02/2020 Nikolay Aleksandrovich DEMENTYEV 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/3019 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 15 days Moscow City Court 13/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 7.00 p.m. on 05/08/2019 when the applicant’s trial started;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 13/08/2019 5,000     11044/20 07/02/2020 Anton Aleksandrovich FROLOV 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 30/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 30/09/2019   3,500     11062/20 07/02/2020 Arseniy Sergeyevich KULIKOV 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 24/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.25 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 00.30 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the time indicated in the record of the applicant’s escorting was at variance with the real time of his deprivation of liberty (raised on appeal);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019   4,000   11084/20 07/02/2020 Aleksey Aleksandrovich IVLEV 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 5.50 p.m. to 8.10 p.m. on 03/08/2019, it was not explained why the record of administrative offence could not have been drawn on the spot;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/09/2019   3,500   11578/20 07/02/2020 Ivan Aleksandrovich OSTAPCHUK 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 14/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.55 p.m. to 11.50 p.m. on 03/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 14/11/2019   4,000   12211/20 27/02/2020 Roman Valeryevich VORONIN 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 06/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.40 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.40 a.m. on 04/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/09/2019   4,000   12435/20 22/02/2020 Aleksey Aleksandrovich FEDOSIMOV 1984 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 4.50 p.m. to an unspecified time on 03/08/2019, it was not explained why the record of administrative offence could not have been drawn on the spot;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/08/2019 3,500   19565/20 23/03/2020 Andrey Vladimirovich KASHURIN 1990 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.40 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019; the applicant spent more than 3 hours in the police van before having been brought to the police station;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 22/10/2019   4,000   19609/20 25/03/2020 Kirill Alekseyevich LIPATOV 1990 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 02/12/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 00.30 a.m. on 04/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/12/2019   4,000   19610/20 16/03/2020 Boris Mikhaylovich STARKOV 2000 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 18/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/09/2019   4,000   25986/20 14/04/2020 Andrey Sergeyevich KAZHANOV 1985 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 06/12/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 6.10 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to an unspecified time;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/12/2019   4,000   26632/20 05/06/2020 Yevgeniy Erlenovich BOLSHAKOV 1968 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   13/03/2022 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000                 fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 14/11/2019               Moscow City Court 05/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, - from 6.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to an unspecified time, - from 1.05 p.m. to 9.48 p.m. on 13/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court, 05/08/2022 and 14/11/2019 4,000   33795/20 31/07/2020 Aleksandr Viktorovich TOKMAKOV 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 12/03/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 02.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/03/2020   4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.