CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 novembre 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 } .s4EFA53D { 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; font-style:italic } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s86B15AC5 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF MAZUROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 984/15 and 23 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 9 November 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mazurova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 October 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 of them 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 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 Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, § 489, 7 February 2017, Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, related to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§   77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§   38-42, 8   October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others , cited above, §§ 178 ‑ 88, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention; Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 62-65, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     The applicants in application no. 984/15 raised complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 15.     Some other applicants also raised additional complaints under Article   6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 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 Article 6 of the Convention, and   declares   the remainder of application no.   984/15   inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (a)   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 9 November 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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]     984/15 26/12/2014   1) Olga Mikhaylovna MAZUROVA 1960   2) Anna Valentinovna ANNENKOVA 1980   3) Niks Neytan NEMENI 1988   Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Perm Rally in support of the Russian LGBT community   Moscow   07/02/2014 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fines of RUB   5,000, 15,000 and 20,000, respectively in relation to the three applicants Moscow City Court, 26/06/2014, 02/07/2014 and 14/07/2014, respectively In respect of 2 nd and 3 rd applicants : Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 8.15   p.m. to 11.35 p.m. on 07/02/2014     3,000 (to applicant Mazurova)   5,000 (to applicant Annenkova)   5,000 (to applicant Nemeni)     19096/21 23/03/2021 Viktor Kosto GRIVACHAUSKAS 1973     Rally against the constitutional amendments   Moscow   22/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 24/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: 1) escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.00 p.m. to 11.40 p.m. on 26/06/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 06/07/2020, 2) escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 12.10 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. on 11/10/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 24/09/2020 and 07/06/2021;   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - solo picketing on 11/10/2020, in Moscow, administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 07/06/2021   5,000     23107/21 12/04/2021 Natalya Yuryevna KOCHUGOVA 1977 Sidelnikova Polina Aleksandrovna Vladivostok Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal   Vladivostok   01/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 15/12/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 15/12/2020 4,000     24124/21 13/04/2021 Mariya Nikolayevna PONOMARENKO 1978     Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region Mr S. Furgal   Barnaul   08/08/2020 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Altay Regional Court 13/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: - from 11.20 a.m. on 22/08/2020 to 24/08/2020, after the administrative record was drawn up and until the court hearing, - from 7.00 p.m. on 16/06/2021 to 12.00 a.m. on 17/06/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Altay Regional Court, 13/10/2020 and 25/08/2021;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction for having made calls on 20/04/2021 to participate in an unauthorised public event scheduled for 21/04/2021, art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, fine of RUB 75,000. Final decision: Altay regional Court, 25/08/2021   5,500     24864/21 20/04/2021 Nikolay Andreyevich NIKOLAYEV 1998 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 14   days Moscow City Court 12/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021   5,000     26904/21 08/05/2021 Oksana Viktorovna KURAKOVA 1986 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal     Irkutsk   08/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Irkutsk Regional Court 18/11/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court, 18/11/2020 4,000     26949/21 17/05/2021 Aleksandr Andreyevich RASSOKHIN 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr I. Safronov   Moscow   13/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 08/12/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention from 2.15 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 13/07/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 21/07/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/12/2020   5,000     27420/21 04/05/2021 Dmitriy Valeryevich LANETS 1975 Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich Khabarovsk Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal   Khabarovsk   10/10/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article   20.2 §   6.1 of CAO two fines of RUB   15,000 each Khabarovsk Regional Court, 05/11/2020 and 10/11/2020 Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - The applicant was convicted twice for his participation in the same public event of 10/10/2020 - under art. 20.2 § 5 and under art. 20.2 §   6.1 of the CAO (respective final decisions: Khabarovsk regional Court, 05/11/2020 and 10/11/2020) 4,000     28256/21 30/04/2021 Diana Vladimirovna LUKA 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal   Khabarovsk   15/09/2020     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 10/11/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Khabarovsk Regional Court, 10/11/2020 4,000   28259/21 30/04/2021 Andrey Aleksandrovich LATALIN 1981 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr N.   Platoshkin   Moscow   25/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 26/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.00   p.m. to 8.15 p.m. on 25/07/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 06/08/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/11/2020   5,000   28549/21 02/06/2021 Anton Viktorovich KOSYY 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr. A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 15   days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.15   p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 00. 35 a.m. on 01/02/2021   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 05/02/2021   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   5,500   28558/21 17/05/2021 Tatyana Gennadyevna LARICHEVA 1976 Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Rally against the constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 18/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 07.30   p.m. on 15/07/2020 to 03.00 a.m. on 16/07/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/11/2020   4,000   28568/21 19/05/2021 Aleksey Gennadyevich FILIMONOV 1970 Fedotova Yuliya Yekaterinburg Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal   Khabarovsk   10/10/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 24/11/2020   3,500   28608/21 20/05/2021 Taisiya Lvovna BEKBULATOVA 1991 Gamazov Alan Olegovich Moscow Rally in support of Mr I.   Safronov   Moscow   13/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 20/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 13/07/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 20/11/2020       5,000   29831/21 15/05/2021 Anatoliy Ivanovich KOSTENKO 1951 Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Tagil Rally in support of Mr   A.   Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021     Political rally   Yekaterinburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000             administrative detention of 30 days Sverdlovsk Regional Court 14/04/2021           Sverdlovsk Regional Court 16/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: - from 1.50 p.m. to 5.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021, - from 2.50 p.m. 06/03/2022 to 07/03/2022, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case;   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   5,500   30314/21 18/05/2021 Pavel Sergeyevich VERTIKOV 2001 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Rally against the constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 18/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 9.30   p.m. on 15/07/2020 to 3.30 a.m. on 16/07/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/11/2020   5,000   30337/21 17/05/2021 Anna Aleksandrovna VASILYEVA 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr   I.   Safronov   Moscow   13/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 02/12/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.30   p.m. to 5.50 p.m. on 13/07/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 22/07/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/12/2020   5,000   30585/21 13/05/2021 Yevgeniy Valentinovich BAKHOTSKIY 1970 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal   Krasnoyarsk   15/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   13,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 19/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.40   p.m. 15/08/2020 to 2.00 p.m. on 17/08/2020;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19/11/2020   5,000   31158/21 22/05/2021 Oksana Vladimirovna SERGEYEVA 1973 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Rally in support of Mr A.   Navalnyy   Velikiy Novgorod   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Novgorod Regional Court 05/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 05/03/2021 4,000   31379/21 12/05/2021 Vasiliy Dodiyevich VAYSENBERG 1983 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally in support of Mr A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days Moscow City Court 30/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 30/03/2021;   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 4,000   31526/21 24/05/2021 Diana Yevgenyevna YADRYSHNIKOVA 1985 Ruchko Irina Yuryevna Yekaterinburg   Rally in support of Mr A.   Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 25 hours of community works Sverdlovsk Regional Court 31/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.30   a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021   5,000   32172/21 11/06/2021 Andrey Mikhaylovich YEPIFANOVSKIY 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A.   Navalnyy   Tula   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Tula Regional Court 09/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.50   p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Tula Regional Court, 09/03/2021   5,000   32196/21 25/05/2021 Olga Nikolayevna LAZARENKO 1974 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal   Poyarkovo village, Amur Region   23/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Amur Regional Court 07/12/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Amur Regional Court, 07/12/2020 4,000   32666/21 24/05/2021 Shamil Ramilevich VALISHIN 1999 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally in support of Mr. A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 12   days Moscow City Court 12/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.00   p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.