CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 septembre 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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s22DFA96B { width:28.86pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC5599237 { width:142.72pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; 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 } .s6436E78A { height:15.4pt } .s52D83925 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:115%; font-size:8pt } .sCB8B756B { height:51.05pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCD93D88E { height:65.25pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF NIKOLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 13679/18 and 20 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 7 September 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nikolenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 July 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 various 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, having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion in applications nos. 39614/18, 45704/18 and 48549/19, 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. Russ ia, 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 of an appeal against the sentence of administrative 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 10-13 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 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 the applications 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 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 7 September 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   {signature_p_1}   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   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]     13679/18 02/03/2018 Kirill Dmitriyevich NIKOLENKO 1989 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anticorruption rally   Vladimir   12/06/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Vladimir Regional Court 06/09/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     39614/18 03/08/2018 Aleksandr Yuryevich ARTEMOV 1990 Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   12/06/2017   Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000           administrative detention of 7   days Moscow City Court 06/02/2018           Moscow City Court 27/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 12/06/2017 as administrative suspect, for drawing up a record of administrative offence; and (ii)   between 6 p.m. on 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021, as administrative suspect, "for compilation of administrative material"; no evidence/assessment of any "exceptional circumstances", under the CAO,   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 administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     44996/18 14/09/2018 Vladislav Vladimirovich KULCHITSKIY 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support on A.   Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don   24/12/2017 Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Rostov Regional Court 19/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     45058/18 12/09/2018 Olga Yuryevna KOMLEVA 1979 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Ufa   28/01/2018     Rally against the pension reform   Ufa   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 1 of CA           Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           fine of RUB   75,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 14/03/2018       Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan 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 - both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings 4,500     45704/18 22/09/2018 Dmitriy Yevgenyevich BOGATOV 1993     Anti-corruption rally   Moscow   12/06/2017     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000           fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/03/2018             Moscow City Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 12/06/2017, and (ii) on 23/01/2021, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, 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 administrative-offence proceedings   4,000     54029/18 06/11/2018 Dmitriy Vladimirovich KALINYCHEV 1980     Boris Nemtsov memorial march   Nizhniy Novgorod   25/02/2018     Event to protest against unfair elections ("Funeral of the elections")   Nizhniy Novgorod   11/03/2018     Rally against the pension reform   Nizhniy Novgorod   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO                 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO         fine of RUB   150,000             administrative detention of 20   days               administrative detention of 20   days       Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 01/08/2018           Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 10/05/2018               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 - all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 13/09/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 6,000     55565/18 13/11/2018   and   52297/20 31/10/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SOFEYEV 1987 Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna Moscow     Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Rally against the ban of the Telegram Messenger   Moscow   16/04/2018     Rally against abusive criminal prosecution   Moscow   03/02/2020     Event in support of LGBT community   Moscow   07/10/2020 Article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO       fine of RUB   10,000               fine of RUB   15,000               administrative detention of 30   days     Moscow City Court 30/05/2018               Moscow City Court 04/09/2020               Moscow City Court 13/10/2020       Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – (i)   arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 16/04/2018 and 17/04/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record was drawn up on 16/04/2018); (ii) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 08/10/2020 and 09/10/2020 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 (two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings, final judgments given on 30/05/2018 and 13/10/2020 respectively)   5,000     11699/19 15/02/2019 Aleksey Yuryevich GOLYSHEV 1976 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Opposition rally   Moscow   05/05/2018     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021             Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Korolev, Moscow Region   21/04/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (first-instance court – proceedings discontinued by the court of appeal)               Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           fine of RUB   10,000 (ordered by the first instance court   – subsequently quashed, as proceedings discontinued by the court of appeal)   fine of RUB 5,000 Moscow City Court 24/09/2018           Moscow City Court (administrative ‑ offence proceedings discontinued) 07/06/2021               Moscow Regional Court 27/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) escorted and detained in a police station on 05/05/2018 as administrative suspect; (ii) on 31/01/2021, for drawing up a record of administrative offence; (iii)   between 21/04/2021 and 23/04/2021, 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 – the first and the third sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (final judgments of 24/09/2018 and 27/05/2021) 5,000     17792/19 18/03/2019 Timur Arturovich TUKHVATULLIN 2001 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Rally against the pension reform   Kazan   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 20/02/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 09/09/2018, in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 4,000   28970/19 04/05/2019 Kirill Vladimirovich SEREBRENNIKOV 1996 Fedotova Yuliya Yevgenyevna Yekaterinburg Rally against the pension reform   Yekaterinburg   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 22/01/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   30129/19 21/05/2019 Anatoliy Mariyevich SVECHNIKOV 1972     Rally against the pension reform   Yekaterinburg   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 28/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention on 09/09/2018 in excess of three hours, 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   31511/19 28/05/2019 Natalya Sergeyevna PETERIMOVA 1987 Balog Natalya Andreyevna Krasnoyarsk Rally against the pension reform   Krasnoyarsk   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 29/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 18/09/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; escort and arrest records not 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   37262/19 16/03/2019 Anton Viktorovich STRUNIN 1982     Rally against the pension reform   Penza   09/09/2018   Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   and   Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 10   days   and   fine of RUB   14,000 Penza Regional Court 18/09/2018   and   Penza Regional Court 04/04/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 11/09/2018 and 12/09/2018 as administrative suspect 5,000   48549/19 28/08/2019 Petr Vladimirovich ABLIN 1981     Event against the pension reform   Moscow   05/11/2018     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019   Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021   Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000             fine of RUB   15,000             fine of RUB   20,000             fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 28/02/2019             Moscow City Court 14/10/2019               Moscow City Court 14/04/2021             Moscow City Court 08/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty-arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on four occasions, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: (i) on 05/11/2018, (ii) on 27/07/2019, in excess of three hours (the administrative offence record only drawn up on 31/07/2019), (iii) on 23/01/2021 (administrative offence record compiled only on 25/01/2021), and (iv) on 31/01/2021, in excess of three hours, and after the administrative-offence record had been drawn up,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - four sets of the administrative-offence proceedings   5,000   56867/19 14/10/2019 Aleksandr Vladimirovich YUFRYAKOV 1958 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan Rally against construction of a disposal site   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019 Article 20.2 § 6 of CAO fine of RUB   14,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 18/06/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   6884/20 28/01/2020 Aleksey Yuryevich CHERKES 1984 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 18/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police office, detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect (offence record compiled already on 27/07/2019),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   7523/20 29/01/2020 Yevgeniy Ivanovich SKACHKOV 1979 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect; no evidence/assessment of any exceptional circumstances under the CAO,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   12207/20 27/02/2020 Aleksey Igorevich SEMENOV 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Demonstration in support of Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/08/2019 (the final decision served on the applicant on the following day) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention on 12/06/2019 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   19605/20 25/03/2020 Nikolay Nikolayevich LYASKIN 1982 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   31/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 02/12/2019   3,500   32691/20 02/07/2020 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich KUZNETSOV 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/08/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   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.