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 } .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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 SAFRONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 55881/17 and 27 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 Safronov 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 participants or organisers of public assemblies. 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 participants or organisers 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, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Smadikov v. Russia   (dec.), no. 10810/15, 31 January 2017) and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     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 the 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 (CAO); Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 37-43, 8   October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention under the CAO; Korneyeva , cited above, §§   47-65, related to the right not be tried or punished twice in the criminal proceedings; and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§   402 ‑ 78, 7 February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, there is no need to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention or under other provisions of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints; Holds that there has been a violation 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 the 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 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]     55881/17 13/07/2017 Aleksandr Nikolayevich SAFRONOV 1987     Anticorruption event   Yeisk, 12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 10 days of detention Krasnodar Regional Court 20/06/2017   5,000     78686/17 25/10/2017 Ivan Konstantinovich VASHCHENKO 1987 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Anticorruption rally   St Petersburg, 12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 2 days of detention   fine of RUB 10,000   St Petersburg City Court 06/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12-14/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - Final decision in both sets of the proceedings - 06/07/2017, St   Petersburg City Court; Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution and punishment in the second set of the proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings 5,000, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to the applicant   850, for legal costs, to be paid to his lawyer, Mr A. Peredruk     3465/18 03/01/2018 Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich MASHININ 1997 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 26/03/2017     Rally to support A. Navalnyy   Moscow, 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000         7 days of detention Moscow City Court 04/07/2017         Moscow City Court 27/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in the case under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal: lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against sentence of detention - the applicant started serving the sentence of administrative detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings do not offer suspensive effect 5,000     48446/18 04/10/2018 Ivan Mikhaylovich DIVILKOVSKIY 1990 Balog Natalya Andreyevna Krasnoyarsk Anticorruption rally   Moscow, 12/06/2017     Rally to support I.   Golunov   Moscow, 12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000         fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 04/04/2018         Moscow City Court 10/02/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     59664/18 06/12/2018 Mikhail Sergeyevich IVANOV 1996 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Opposition rally   Cheboksary, 05/05/2018   Rally to support A. Navalnyy   Cheboksary, 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work       fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic 07/06/2018     Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic 22/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 23/01/2021 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report 4,000     2485/19 02/01/2019 Sergey Nikolayevich KUPRIYANOV 1994 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Distribution of leaflets to support A. Navalny   Smolensk, 15/03/2018 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 20 hours of community work Smolensk Regional Court 11/07/2018   3,500     3017/19 29/12/2018 Yevgeniy Alekseyevich MAKAROV 1955 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Political rally   Moscow, 12/03/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2018   3,500     6683/19 21/01/2019 Maksim Anatolyevich RUDYK 1982 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Moscow, 05/05/2018 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 1,000       fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 30/07/2018     Moscow City Court 06/08/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in the case under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - refusal to approve a rally planned for 18/04/2018 (final decision on 25/03/2019, Supreme Court of Russia) 3,500     11719/19 19/02/2019 Darina Sergeyevna FOMOVA 1994 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Rally for animal protection   Moscow, 07/02/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 20/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 07-08/02/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   24504/19 29/04/2019 Dmitriy Ivanovich DOROKHIN 1963 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally against abusive criminal prosecution   St Petersburg, 28/10/2018     "Mothers’ rage march" rally   St Petersburg, 10/02/2019 Article 20.2.2 §   1 CAO               Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000             fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 20/12/2018             St Petersburg City Court 17/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) on 28-29/10/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report; (ii) on 10/02/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   34223/19 14/06/2019 Valentin Pavlovich PANFEROV 1999 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Rally against abusive criminal prosecution   Moscow, 28/10/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 14/12/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 28/10/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   34270/19 14/06/2019 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich PELEVIN 2000 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Rally against abusive criminal prosecution   Moscow, 28/10/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 14/12/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 28/10/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   34399/19 14/06/2019 Rukhulla Khafizullayevich BORODIY 1997 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally against abusive criminal prosecution   Moscow, 28/10/2018     Rally fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow, 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000             5 days of detention Moscow City Court 14/12/2018             Moscow City Court 06/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) on 28/10/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report; (ii) on 27-29/07/2019 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal: lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against sentence of detention - the applicant started serving the sentence of administrative detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings do not offer suspensive effect 5,000   34848/19 17/06/2019 Sergey Sergeyevich GRECHISHKIN 1988 Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna Oktyabrskiy Rally against the pension reform   Novosibirsk, 09/11/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 18/12/2018   3,500   44148/19 12/08/2019 Georgiy Alekseyevich KOVALEV 1997 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Rally against abusive criminal prosecution   Moscow, 28/10/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 14/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 28/10/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   58548/19 29/10/2019 Ilya Valeryevich SIYALOV 1984 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally for fair elections   St Petersburg, 01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work St Petersburg City Court 23/07/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   59935/19 01/11/2019 Alina Sergeyevna MISHEVA 1999 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally for fair elections   St Petersburg, 01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work St Petersburg City Court 18/06/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 01/05/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   63606/19 29/11/2019 Aleksey Vladimirovich YURCHUK 1981 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow, 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 27/07/2019 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling an offence report (which was then 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   2490/20 29/11/2019 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SHUKOLYUKOV 1979 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally for fair elections   St Petersburg, 01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 01/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 01/05/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   2613/20 17/12/2019 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich YEPIFANOV 1977 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally for fair elections   St Petersburg, 01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 01/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 01/05/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   3411/20 09/12/2019 Yuliya Vladimirovna TKACHENKO 1963 Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg Rally against a church construction   Yekaterinburg, 16/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 06/08/2019   3,500   4371/20 03/12/2019 Aleksandr Sergeyevich ALEKSANDROV 1978 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally for fair elections   St Petersburg, 01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 09/07/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 01/05/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report 4,000   5160/20 16/12/2019 Oleg Anatolyevich PERETRUKHIN 1971 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally for fair elections   St Petersburg, 01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work St Petersburg City Court 24/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 01/05/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report ,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   6559/20 23/01/2020 Ilya Denisovich SMIRNOV 1999 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow Rally against the isolation of the Russian segment of the Internet   Moscow, 10/03/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 24/07/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 10/03/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report 4,000   17334/20 26/02/2020 Viktor Viktorovich PRIYMACHENKO 1988     Rally to support I.   Golunov   Moscow, 12/06/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000   Moscow City Court 28/08/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   19333/20 23/03/2020 Vadim Sergeyevich LITVINENKO 2001 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow, 27/07/2019       Rally to support A. Navalnyy   Moscow, 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO               Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000             13 days of detention Moscow City Court 22/10/2019             Moscow City Court 30/01/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) on 27-28/07/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report; (ii) on 23-25/01/2021 detention in a police station after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal: lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against sentence of detention - the applicant started serving the sentence of administrative detention immediately after the conviction by the first-instance court; the lodging of appeal or appeal proceedings do not offer suspensive effect 5,000   26827/20 23/04/2020 Natalya Yuryevna BARINOVA 1981 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally for fair elections   St Petersburg, 01/05/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 11,000 St Petersburg City Court 29/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 01/05/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   27889/20 13/06/2020 Sergey Vladimirovich KACHALIN 1987 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow, 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 18/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 27-29/07/2019 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,   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.