CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } .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 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MILKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 3316/19 and 46 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 8 June 2023         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Milkova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 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, 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; and 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”). remaining complaints 14.     Some applicants also raised other further additional complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning other 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 as regards the other complaints raised under 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 8 June 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   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]     3316/19 29/12/2018 Olga Alekseyevna MILKOVA 1965 Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 07/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500     5827/19 29/12/2018 Igor Vasilyevich MILKOV 1965 Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 09/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500     6005/19 25/12/2018 Svetlana Ivanovna YEFIMOVICH 1940 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 10/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500     6009/19 25/12/2018 Yuriy Sergeyevich SITNIKOV 1995 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 25/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500     6014/19 25/12/2018 Viktor Viktorovich PARSHUKOV 1984 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 25/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     6017/19 25/12/2018 Yevgeniy Igorevich ZUBOV 1997 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 10/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     6030/19 25/12/2018 Anastasiya Sergeyevna GRIGORYEVA 1993 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 25/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500     6041/19 26/12/2018 Ruslan Vladimirovich KHAFIZOV 1988 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 01/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500     6044/19 26/12/2018 Aleksey Nikolayevich BRYANTSEV 1979 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 25/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   6687/19 21/01/2019 Vladimir Ivanovich CHERNYSHEV 1966 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Belgorod     Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 20 days Belgorod Regional Court 19/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   5,000   7465/19 23/01/2019 Yevgeniy Levonovich BAGDASAROV 1988 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   7469/19 22/01/2019 Yevgeniy Vladislavovich LAZUTIN 1993 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   7473/19 22/01/2019 Maksim Vladimirovich VILENSKIY 1987 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   7476/19 22/01/2019 Maksim Yevgenyevich PESHKOV 1985 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   7479/19 22/01/2019 Aleksey Nikolayevich VASILENKO 1959 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   7482/19 22/01/2019 Lyudmila Anatolyevna BORISENKO 1965 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   7484/19 22/01/2019 Sergey Nikolayevich BORISENKO 1964 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   7488/19 22/01/2019 Olga Aleksandrovna GERASYUK 1993 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   7489/19 22/01/2019 Sergey Aleksandrovich MAKSIMENKO 1984 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   7490/19 22/01/2019 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich ROMANOV 1996 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   7492/19 22/01/2019 Alla Pavlovna MOROZOVA 1965 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Stavropol     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Stavropol Regional Court 24/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   13467/19 12/02/2019 Aleksandra Dmitriyevna LUKYANENKO 1997 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 04/10/2018 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 5.15   p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 12.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018, released at 8.35 a.m. on 11/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   13635/19 13/02/2019 Polina Yuryevna MIKHAYLOVA 1995 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 08/11/2018 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 5.15   p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.25   p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 2.45 p.m. on 11/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   13814/19 01/03/2019 Tatyana Nikolayevna ZAYTSEVA 1986 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Omsk     Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 25,000 Omsk Regional Court 30/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   15103/19 12/02/2019 Aleksandr Yuryevich SERGEYEV 1999 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 08/11/2018 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 4   p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 5.25 a.m. on 10/09/2018, released at 2.45 p.m. on 11/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   17456/19 14/03/2019 Mariya Aleksandrovna LAKHINA 1996 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 25/10/2018 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 4.30   p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 12.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018, released at 8.30 a.m. on 11/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   18775/19 19/03/2019 Andrey Aleksandrovich MANICHENKO 1956 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Chelyabinsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 75,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 18/10/2018 (amended by the decision of the Deputy President of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 26/02/2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000   20463/19 26/03/2019 Denis Alekseyevich KRAVCHENKO 1997 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Ulan-Ude     Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic 22/10/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   22087/19 12/04/2019 Andrey Vladimirovich NEKURYASHCHIKH 1966 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Omsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Omsk Regional Court 11/12/2018 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 3.30   p.m. and brought to the police station at 4.30   p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 2 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   22689/19 12/04/2019 Alla Vladimirovna KUZNETSOVA 1967 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Ulan-Ude     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of Buryatia Republic 12/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   24633/19 09/04/2019 Mikhail Filippovich NIKANOROV 1997 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days St Petersburg City Court 11/10/2018 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 6.15   p.m. and brought to the police station at 7.36   p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 10.39 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   24652/19 09/04/2019 Denis Sergeyevich GUZHAVIN 1985 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 5 days St Petersburg City Court 11/10/2018 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 6.15   p.m. and brought to the police station at 7.36   p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 10.42 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   28932/19 13/05/2019 Pavel Sergeyevich PUSHECHNIKOV 1992 Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 13 days Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 14/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000   28976/19 13/05/2019 Roman Vladimirovich BOLSHAKOV 1992 Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod   Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 12 days Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 14/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     5,000   29623/19 22/05/2019 Irina Olegovna PRISEKINA 1961 Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 04/12/2018 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report and detention in excess of 3 hours (brought to the police station at 5.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018 and released at 1.53 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   29876/19 08/05/2019 Egor Igorevich YAROSHEVSKIY 2000 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 13/11/2018 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   p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 1.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018, released in the morning on 11/09/2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   32221/19 29/05/2019 Pavel Vitalyevich DAMOV 1971 Balog Natalya Andreyevna Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community work Krasnoyarsk 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   32331/19 30/04/2019 Tatyana Aleksandrovna GARAMOVA 1987 Botukh Yuliya Igorevna Murino St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 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 5.57   p.m. and brought to the police station at 8.05   p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 8.15 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   34115/19 17/06/2019 Aleksey Viktorovich GONYAKOV 1987 Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Novosibirsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 18/12/2018   3,500   34307/19 18/06/2019 Anton Vadimovich VISHNYAKOV 1997 Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Novosibirsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 18/12/2018   3,500   35126/19 17/06/2019 Vitaliy Alekseyevich BREKALOV 1993 Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Novosibirsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 18/12/2018   3,500   36767/19 24/06/2019 Vladimir Anatolyevich GORBUNOV 1976 Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Novosibirsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 25/12/2018   3,500   37102/19 28/06/2019 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich MIRONOV 1995 Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg Yekaterinburg   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 23/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.30 p.m., brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m. and released later in the evening 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   42382/19 14/07/2019 Svetlana Viktorovna KAVERZINA 1995 Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Novosibirsk     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 15/01/2019   3,500   58204/19 29/10/2019 Andrey Sergeyevich VODOLAZSKIY 1991 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg St Petersburg     Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO 60 hours of community work St Petersburg City Court 11/06/2019 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 8.15 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 4.38 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   5983/20 16/01/2020 Dmitriy Sergeyevich TERESHCHENKO 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Krasnodar     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 16/07/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   6271/20 16/01/2020 Andrey Petrovich KULESHOV 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Krasnodar     Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 16/07/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.