CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 1 juin 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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF NEBIYERIDZE AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 41505/17 and 30 others – see appended list)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 1 June 2023       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Nebiyeridze and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Anja Seibert-Fohr , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 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 corruption organised by Aleksey Navalnyy on 26 March 2017 (see Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 2, 4   October 2022). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto. 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, 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”); and 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants also raised other further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of 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 , cited above, § 22), 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 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 Article 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 1 June 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Faris Vehabović   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]     41505/17 11/05/2017 Vitaliy Otariyevich NEBIYERIDZE 1968     Sochi     Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 8 days Krasnodar Regional Court 31/03/2017                   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   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. 5,000     53791/17 17/07/2017 Stanislav Vladimirovich BABANOV 1992 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Volgograd     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 19/04/2017   3,500     79023/17 09/11/2017 Sergey Vladimirovich ANDREYEV 1978 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Almetyevsk     Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 02/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     79374/17 02/11/2017 Ilya Vladimirovich KOROBKOV 1986 Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich Sofia, Bulgaria Ekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 03/05/2017   3,500     607/18 07/12/2017 Mikhail Aleksandrovich IOSILEVICH 1976 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Nizhniy Novgorod     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 15/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2 p.m., brought to the police station and released at 6 p.m. on 26/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     2564/18 07/12/2017 Boris Mikhaylovich ZOLOTAREVSKIY 1997 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 21/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     2571/18 08/12/2017 Artem Sergeyevich AGANIN 1997 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Nizhniy Novgorod     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 15/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2.10 p.m., brought to the police station and released at 6 p.m. on 26/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     3683/18 08/01/2018 Yevgeniy Igorevich GERASIMOV 1984 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 18/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     3685/18 08/01/2018 Pavel Nikolayevich FISENKO 1979 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 14/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   3687/18 08/01/2018 Emil Narimanovich ASANOV 1991 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 28/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 10.30 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 3 a.m. on 27/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   3689/18 08/01/2018 Kirill Vitalyevich YAKOVENKO 1992 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 14/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 5 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 3 a.m. on 27/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   3780/18 12/01/2018 Ivan Leonidovich VINNIKOV 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 14/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 8.30 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 4.45 a.m. on 27/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   4031/18 08/01/2018 Ilya Pavlovich KONSTANTINOV 1997 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 14/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   4038/18 08/01/2018 Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZAKHAROV 1990 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 28/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 4 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 1.25 a.m. on 27/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   4039/18 08/01/2018 Maksim Yevgenyevich DUNOV 1972 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 28/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (brought to the police station at 4 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and released at 2.15 a.m. on 27/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   4044/18 08/01/2018 Surazh Rustambayevich MATKURBANOV 1994 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 20/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   4055/18 08/01/2018 Yevgeniy Vitalyevich MAKEYEV 1970 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 12/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   4065/18 08/01/2018 Aleksey Vasilyevich PRONIN 1973 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 24/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   4845/18 17/01/2018 Yevgeniy Igorevich NOSENKO 1986 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 14/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   4848/18 17/01/2018 Mikhail Valeryevich TOKARSKIY 1975 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Khabarovsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 26/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2.30 p.m., brought to the police station and released after 5.p.m. on 26/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   4856/18 17/01/2018 Yaroslav Yakovlevich PAVLYUKOV 1993 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 10/08/2017 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 3.30 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6 p.m. on 26/03/2017; released at 5.05 a.m. on 27/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   4888/18 17/01/2018 Kita Pavlovich MARTYANOV 1988 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 26/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   5027/18 08/01/2018 Aleksandr Anatolyevich SHVETSKOV 1990 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 18/07/2017 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 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.45 p.m. on 26/03/2017; released at 12.30 a.m. on 27/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   5062/18 08/01/2018 Viktor Aleksandrovich TARASOV 1998 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 26/07/2017 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 4 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5 p.m. on 26/03/2017; released at 2.10 a.m. on 27/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   5205/18 17/01/2018 Eduard Urozoyevich GABBASOV 1975 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 08/08/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   5213/18 17/01/2018 Vladislav Viktorovich PAVLOV 1977 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 26/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   5234/18 17/01/2018 Aleksandr Stanislavovich POTASHEV 1990 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 18/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   5275/18 17/01/2018 Pavel Igorevich MARKOV 1988 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Khabarovsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 31/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 2.20 p.m., brought to the police station and released after 5.p.m. on 26/03/2017);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   6451/18 18/01/2018 Farid Akhmadovich ZARIFI 1977 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 18/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   6575/18 26/01/2018 Andrey Olegovich PAVLOV 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 26/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   26994/18 23/05/2018 Maksim Olegovich GULBIN 1978 Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Moscow Moscow     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 18,000 Moscow City Court 28/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.