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 } .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 } .s39FC5D7A { height:22.45pt } .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 } .sB47A2E16 { height:135.85pt } .s6436E78A { height:15.4pt } .s39365D7A { height:29.55pt } .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 SHARASHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 57223/19 and 21 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 Sharashkin 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 organisers and 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 organisers and participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. Some applicants also invoked Article   10; however, those 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, 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 well ‑ established case-law (see Butkevich v.   Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13   February 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; and 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)). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     Some applicants further raised additional complaints under Articles   5 and 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their detention and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 14.     Lastly, in applications nos.   57223/19, 6752/20, 10914/20 and   24997/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Convention provisions. 15.     The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 17.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see 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. 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 assembly and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that there is no need to examine other complaints raised by the applicants under Articles 5 and   6 of the Convention about other aspects of their detention and the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings, and declares the remainder of applications nos.   57223/19, 6752/20, 10914/20 and   24997/20 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 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]     57223/19 23/10/2019 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SHARASHKIN 1993 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO 7 days of administrative arrest Moscow City Court 01/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention there between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 for the purposes of “putting end to an offence” and “drawing up a record of administrative offence” (such record complied on 28/07/2019): no evidence/assessment of any “exceptional circumstance”" under the CAO,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 5,000     58888/19 29/10/2019 Anara Bolatovna SIYEZBAYEVA 1999 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 20/08/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 3,500     63212/19 29/11/2019 Nikita Igorevich SERGIEVSKIY 1986 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to a police office, detention on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000     63856/19 03/12/2019 Maksim Fandasovich KAMALEYEV 1995 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings   4,000     64234/19 02/12/2019 Igor Tagirovich AFLATUNOV 1975 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention between 27/07/2019 to 29/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 28/07/2019): no evidence/assessment of any "exceptional circumstances" under the CAO 4,000     65069/19 18/12/2019 Maksim Grigoryevich ZAVARZIN 1975 Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000     6752/20 23/01/2020 Georgiy Aleksandrovich BURKHANOV 2000 Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019       Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000                 fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019               Moscow City Court 20/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - (i) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 27/07/2019 and at least 28/07/2019 (as confirmed by documents and as raised on appeal) as administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of any "exceptional circumstances" under the CAO; and (ii) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 02/02/2021 in excess of three hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000     7758/20 23/01/2020 Miroslav Aleksandrovich BORISOV 1997 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 16/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of three hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000     8338/20 03/02/2020 Konstantin Dmitriyevich SECHENIN 1993 Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect (after the record of administrative offence had been compiled on 27/07/2019): no evidence/assessment of any exceptional circumstances under the CAO,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   8543/20 28/01/2020 Aleksandr Yuryevich SOLOVYEV 1987 Borisova Alena Sergeyevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019         Manifestation against political repressions   Moscow   31/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO                   Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 8-day administrative detention                 20-day administrative detention Moscow City Court 01/08/2019                 Moscow City Court 11/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention (i) between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 for drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled already on 27/07/2019); and (ii) between 6.20   p.m. on 03/09/2019 and 4   p.m. on 04/09/2019 for drawing up an administrative offence record and "prevention of an administrative offence" (administrative-offence record in respect of the public event of 31/08/2019 compiled on 03/09/2019): no evidence/assessment of any "exceptional circumstances" under the CAO,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 6,000   8650/20 03/02/2020 Vladimir Valeryevich KRAVCHENKO 1986 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Manifestation in support of I.   Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019       Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO               Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000                 fine of RUB   12,000 Moscow City Court 16/10/2019               Moscow City Court 04/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 12/06/2019, in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; and (ii) between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019, for the same purpose (the administrative offence record was compiled already on 27/07/2019),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative offence proceedings (final judgments issued on 04/09/2019 and 16/10/2019 respectively) 4,000   9267/20 03/02/2020 Matvey Aleksandrovich ZASLAVSKIY 1980 Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of three hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   10914/20 15/02/2020 Aleksey Olegovich GOLOVENKO 1987 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019     Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO             Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000             fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/08/2019             Moscow City Court 21/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention (i) between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and (ii) between 02/02/2021and 03/02/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence – no evidence/assessment of any “exceptional circumstances” under the CAO,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - both sets of administrative-offence proceedings (final judgment issued on 16/08/2019 and 21/09/2021) 4,000   12890/20 27/02/2020         and       28755/20 18/03/2020 Boris Antonovich POSPELOV 1999 Sirotina Anastasiya Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000               fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2019             Moscow City Court 20/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (first set of the proceedings, final judgment of 04/09/2019) 3,500   13793/20 02/03/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich TEKIN 1993 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   18,000 Moscow City Court 12/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   14071/20 17/07/2017 Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich TAMKOVICH 1990 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Anticorruption manifestation   Moscow   26/03/2017       Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019       Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000               fine of RUB   10,000                 fine of RUB   15,000   Moscow City Court 25/05/2017             Moscow City Court 24/09/2019               Moscow City Court 26/09/2019   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention (i) on 26/03/2017, (ii) on 27/07/2019, in excess of three hours, and (iii) on 03/08/2019 - in all of the three episodes, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   14344/20 05/03/2020 Ilya Yuryevich SAGITOV 1999 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 4,000   14650/20 29/02/2020     and     24997/20 27/02/2020 Denis Igorevich MEGDALSKIY 1994     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 for the sole purpose of compiling a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 28/07/2019); no evidence/assessment of any "exceptional circumstances" under the CAO,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   14740/20 11/03/2020 Kirill Nikolayevich KHAZOV 1998 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   14797/20 11/03/2020 Danil Aleksandrovich SHUSHARIN 2000 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to a police office, detention on 27/07/2019, in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record only compiled on 31/07/2019),   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.