CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 25 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 } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s22DFA96B { width:28.86pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC5599237 { width:142.72pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF RECHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 13359/19 and 36 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 25 May 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rechenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 May 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 or participants of country-wide protests against retirement age hike organised by Aleksey Navalnyy on 9 September 2018. 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 organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey , no. 74552/01, ECHR   2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova , no. 33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4   December 2014; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 13 .     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v.   Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§   115-31, 10   April 2018; and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§   34-36, 8   October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§   58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”); Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no.   36658/05, §§   150-59, 18 December 2018, relating to impossibility to question witnesses in a criminal trial (see the appended table). remaining complaints 14.     Some applicants also raised other complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning various aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15.     The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. 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.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 May 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   {signature_p_1}   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location of the public event   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]     13359/19 25/02/2019 Boris Nikolayevich RECHENKO 1994   Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 14/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (brought to the police station at 2.15 p.m. and released at 2.50 p.m. on 09/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000     14920/19 27/02/2019 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich KUTLENKOV 2000   Mikhaylova Polina Pavlovna Tyumen St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days St Petersburg City Court 18/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 5.45 p.m. and brought to police station at 6.10 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 10.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   5,000     15637/19 12/03/2019 Anastasiya Ivanovna KADETOVA (former SEMENOVA) 1998   Vorobyev Viktor Viktorovich Syktyvkar Volgograd     Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 15 days Volgograd Regional Court 12/09/2018 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 on 09/09/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.     5,000     20104/19 01/04/2019 Aleksandr Akeksandrovich NALIMOV 1987   Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Vladivostok     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 17/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     21598/19 01/04/2019 Aleksandra Sergeyevna KORCHAGINA 2000       St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 09/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 5.05 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 2.54 a.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     22606/19 07/04/2019 Sergey Sergeyevich SAVINOV 1989   Belozerov Aleksey Sergeyevich St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 St Petersburg City Court 01/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 6.20 p.m. and brought to the police station at 10.50 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 3 p.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     24398/19 29/04/2019 Yevgeniy Stanislavovich TALANKIN 1991   Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 16/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested and brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 12.02 a.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     24818/19 20/04/2019 Anton Aleksandrovich ROMANYUK 1982   Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 4 days St Petersburg City Court 01/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 6.05 p.m. and brought to the police station on 09/09/2018, released at 2.30 p.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000     29920/19 11/05/2019 Artem Aleksandrovich SAVASTEYEV 1994   Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg St Petersburg   Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 20 hours of community work St Petersburg City Court 18/10/2018 (the applicant was not informed of the final hearing in his case, was not served with a copy of the appeal decision and only learned about the appeal decision on 14/03/2019, as confirmed by the case-file materials) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 3.20 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.15 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 6.05 p.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   30078/19 28/05/2019 Yuriy Yuryevich SHAPOSHNIKOV 1987   Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod     Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO detention for 12 days Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 29/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   5,000   30260/19 21/05/2019 Roman Viktorovich DOLMATOV 1971   Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevcich Nizhniy Tagil Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 22/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.20 p.m., brought to the police station at 8.45 p.m. and released at 11 p.m. on 09/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   31381/19 27/05/2019 Nikita Sergeyevich VELTISHCHEV 1993   Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 40 hours of community work Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 29/11/2018   3,500   31462/19 27/05/2019 Sergey Yuryevich FIGUROV 2000   Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 60 hours of community work Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 06/12/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   32349/19 29/05/2019 Svetlana Valeryevna BEKMANSUROVA 1991   Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 25/12/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     3,500   33446/19 11/06/2019 Yevgeniy Georgiyevich TIPIKIN 1987   Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 05/03/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 3.50 p.m., brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m. and released at 11.54 p.m. on 09/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   33511/19 11/06/2019 Dmitriy Igorevich REZNICHENKO 1990   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou Komsomolsk-on-Amur   Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 12/12/2018 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested and brought to the police station at 2.10 p.m. and released after 7 p.m. on 09/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   34626/19 17/06/2019 Sergey Yegorovich PFAYFER 1969   Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Novosibirsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 18/12/2018     3,500   35098/19 20/06/2019 Mikhail Fedorovich ABAKUMOV 1963   Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 15/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 3 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 2.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   37430/19 01/07/2019 Andrey Dmitriyevich MEDVEDSKIY 1991       Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 16/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.30 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 2.30 a.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000   40133/19 19/07/2019 Aleksey Aleksandrovich KOLYADA 1983   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 31/01/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   43312/19 02/06/2019 Aleksey Viktorovich NEMTSEV 1987   Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Novosibirsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 22/01/2019     3,500   43948/19 02/08/2019 Nikolay Vladimirovich PETUKHOV 1991 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 06/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 5 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m., released at 10.40 p.m. on 09/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   44374/19 13/08/2019 Makar Viktorovich ALISOV 2000   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 13/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.20 p.m. and brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m., released at 9.34 p.m. on 09/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   44375/19 01/08/2019 Venzhik Ravilyevich GAFIULLIN 1987   Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 20/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 3.30 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 2 a.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   44401/19 07/08/2019 Yevgeniy Borisovich SMIRNOV 1993   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 150,000 St Petersburg City Court 28/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 2 p.m. and brought to the police station at 2.45 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 12.50 p.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 6,000   46815/19 10/08/2019 Denis Vladislavovich BEKMANSUROV 1990   Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 10/04/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   46953/19 28/08/2019 Viktoriya Sergeyevna BRAGINA 2001   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Khabarovsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 15/03/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested and brought to the police station at 3.40 p.m., released at 6 p.m. on 09/09/2018) 4,000   47060/19 28/08/2019 Yelena Vladimirovna KOCHKINA 1988   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Perm     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 14/03/2019   3,500   47387/19 23/08/2019 Tatyana Nikolayevna POVALIY 1977   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Belgorod     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community work Belgorod Regional Court 11/02/2019 (received on 18/03/2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   47474/19 28/08/2019 Liliya Kurtovna OTTO 1965   Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 28/03/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   48304/19 28/08/2019 Aleksey Yuryevich KLIMISHIN 1996   Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 28/02/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   49206/19 28/08/2019 Dmitriy Nikolayevich PLISHKIN 2000   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Perm     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 06/03/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   50290/19 09/09/2019 Sergey Alekseyevich OSOKIN 1989       Krasnodar     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 30/07/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   51747/19 22/09/2019 Ivan Albertovich SHCHETININ 1996   Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 22/03/2019 Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – inability to cross-examine in open court any witnesses, including police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based. 3,500   54204/19 07/10/2019 Semen Valeryevich TARAKANOV 1987   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Perm     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Perm Regional Court Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   62601/19 23/11/2019 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich KHLYNOV 1999   Dubinin Nikolay Anatolyevich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 28/05/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   64296/19 27/11/2019 Nikita Aleksandrovich KHRAMOV 1995   Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna Kazan Kazan     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 29/05/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 5 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.25 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 1.35 a.m. on 10/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.