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 } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .sCE4A6B6E { margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s62E02B8F { width:5.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s9DB82FA2 { height:180.95pt } .sC6B5325C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; line-height:115%; font-size:8pt } .sC6CA4EF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; line-height:200%; font-size:8pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sB71AF114 { width:0.88pt; 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 PUKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 59975/13 and 25 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 Pukhov 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 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 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, 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 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; and Tsvetkova and Others , cited above, §§ 186-88, 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 raised 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 11-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15.     The Court has further examined the remainder of the complaints raised by the applicants in applications nos.   39315/18 and 42500/18 and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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 applications nos.   39315/18 and 42500/18 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints 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 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]       59975/13 12/09/2013 Stanislav Sergeyevich PUKHOV 1985   Davidyan Eleonora Grantovna Moscow Rally against the conviction of the Pussy Riot group members Moscow 17/08/2012 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow 12/03/2013 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 3,500       3930/17 30/12/2016 Valeriy Yuryevich NADEZHDIN 1968   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi March for Change Moscow 12/12/2015 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 08/07/2016 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 12/12/2015 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000       16608/18 22/03/2018 Dmitriy Viktorovich TOLMACHEV 1970   Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Event to inform voters about A.   Navalnyy’s activity   Irkutsk 04/11/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative arrest of 5   days Irkutsk Regional Court 22/11/2017   5,000       21537/18 30/04/2018 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich TITOV 1977   Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich Yekaterinburg Rally to support A.   Navalnyy Yekaterinburg 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 05/12/2017   3,500       27432/18 18/05/2018 Rafail Viktorovich SHEPELEV 1970   Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich Yekaterinburg Rally to support A.Navalnyy Yekaterinburg 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 33 hours of compulsory work Sverdlovsk Regional Court 12/12/2017   3,500       31917/18 21/06/2018 Olga Alekseyevna ZENINA 1952   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy Rostov-on-Don 07/10/2017   Rally to support A.   Navalnyy Rostov-on-Don 24/12/2017 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of the CAO     Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000       fine of RUB 10,000 Rostov Regional Court 21/12/2017     Rostov Regional Court 20/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - both sets of the CAO proceedings 3,500       39315/18 07/08/2018 Vladimir Sergeyevich NEMANOV 1996   Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow "Voters’ strike" rally Kaliningrad 28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Kaliningrad Regional Court 12/02/2018 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 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000       42500/18 30/08/2018   and 19787/19 01/04/2019 Tatyana Viktorovna SPORYSHEVA 1976   42500/18 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius   19787/19 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally to support A.   Navalnyy Rostov-on-Don 24/12/2017   Rally against the pension reform Rostov-on-Don 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   fine of RUB 15,000       administrative detention of 1   day   Rostov Regional Court 07/03/2018     Rostov Regional Court 09/10/2018   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 09/09/2018 and 10/09/2018 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - both sets of the CAO proceedings   4,000       47782/18 21/09/2018 Irina Aleksandrovna NEVEROVA 1989   Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Manifestation to support Mr Navalny’s campaign Perm 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 21/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 3,500   49185/18 10/10/2018 Artem Valeryevich VAZHENKOV 1981   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy Tver 07/07/2017   Political manifestation Tver 05/05/2018   Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO       Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000       administrative detention of 5   days     fine of RUB 10,000 Tver Regional Court 17/05/2018       Tver Regional Court 17/05/2018       Moscow City Court 24/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - all sets of administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) between 00.30 a.m. on 06/05/2018 and 2.40 p.m. on 07/05/2018 as administrative suspect; and (ii) between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect, for "drawing up the administrative offence record" (such record compiled on 28/07/2019). 5,000   52537/18 24/10/2018 Sergey Sergeyevich TSUKASOV 1968   Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Mother’s Day in Ostankino Moscow 11/03/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 06/06/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings 3,500   10407/19 09/02/2019 Ruslan Adamovich MUTSOLGOV 1977   Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Rally against transfer of a part of the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia to the Chechen Republic Magas 26/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia 06/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 3,500   18178/19 26/03/2019 Aleksandra Vladimirovna SEMENOVA 1979   Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Opposition manifestation "He is not our Tsar" Perm 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 150,000 Perm Regional Court 26/09/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings   5,500   21750/19 03/04/2019 Igor Vladimirovich PUSHKAR 1962   Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Rally against the pension reform Omsk 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Omsk Regional Court 15/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty ‑ arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   23746/19 15/04/2019 Vladimir Anatolyevich PEREKOTIY 1962   Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Opposition rally Krasnoyarsk 05/05/2018   Rally against the pension reform Krasnoyarsk 09/09/2018     Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy Krasnoyarsk 23/01/2021   Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy Krasnoyarsk 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 30 hours of community work     fine of RUB 10,000         100 hours of community work     fine of RUB 150,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 25/10/2018     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 28/03/2019       Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 01/04/2021     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 01/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty– (i) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 05/05/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; (ii) arrest and detention between 31/01/2021 and 02/02/2021 as administrative suspect, for compiling the administrative offence record in respect of the events of 23/01/2021 (drawn up on 02/02/2021), pending the examination of the case by the first-instance court;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - all sets of the CAO proceedings 5,500   25576/19 29/04/2019 Yevgeniy Valikhanovich MUSIN 1980   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally against abusive criminal prosecution St Petersburg 28/10/2018 Article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 St Petersburg City Court 10/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 28/10/2018 and 29/10/2018 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   40242/19 17/07/2019 Vladimir Yuryevich SHIPITSYN 1969   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou Rally against abusive criminal prosecution St Petersburg 28/10/2018 Article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 St Petersburg City Court 17/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 28/10/2018 and 29/10/2018 as administrative suspect "for a correct and timely determination of the case",   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   63403/19 28/11/2019 Anzhela Khusenovna MATIYEVA 1971   Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Rally concerning the regional statute on referenda Magas 06/10/2018 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 11/07/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 3,500   1720/20 18/12/2019 Vadim Miroslavovich YASKIV 1989   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 28/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 03/08/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   3878/20 20/12/2019 Sergey Dmitriyevich SOLOVYEV 1999   Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Opposition manifestation Moscow 05/05/2018   Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 27/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000       fine of RUB 200,000   Moscow City Court 20/06/2019       Moscow City Court 30/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention (i) on 05/05/2018, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; delayed escorting to a police station; and (ii) on 27/07/2019 for the same purpose (administrative ‑ offence record drawn up on 30/07/2019 only),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - both sets of administrative proceedings 4,000   6350/20 17/01/2020 Dmitriy Sergeyevich KNYAZEV 1983   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of I. Golunov Moscow 12/06/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 02/08/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 3,500   9088/20 03/02/2020 Marina Aleksandrovna LUKYANETS 1976   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 14/07/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 06/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty -- arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 14/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   15309/20 29/02/2020 Roman Igorevich MAKSIMOV 1995   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Event for fair elections St Petersburg 29/06/2019 Article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 St Petersburg City Court 12/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 6.20 p.m. on 29/06/2019 and 1.20 a.m. on 30/06/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no record of administrative arrest compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings 4,000   17354/20 14/03/2020 Darya Aleksandrovna BELYAYEVA 1991   Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg Rally against a church construction   Yekaterinburg 04/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 18/09/2019   3,500   17906/20 30/03/2020 Nikolay Igorevich NIKIFOROV 1995   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally against the pension reform St Petersburg 09/09/2018 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 14/11/2019   3,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.