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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 KIRPICHEV (KIRPICHENKO) AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 44850/18 and 27 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 Kirpichev (Kirpichenko) 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). Locus standi of M r BORODIN’s widow (application n o .   35843/21) 7.     The Court observes that Mr   V. Borodin (applicant in application no.   35843/21) died while the case was pending before the Court. His wife, Ms Borodina, expressed her wish to continue the proceedings in his stead (see appended table). 8.     The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or close relatives may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see   Ječius v. Lithuania , no.   34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX, and concerning, more specifically, complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, Savenko and Others v. Russia , no. 13918/06, § 52, 14 September 2021, and references cited therein). In the present case, the applicant’s widow submitted documents confirming that she was the applicant’s heir. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Ms   Borodina has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late husband ( ibidem , § 53). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 9.     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. 10.     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). 11.     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. 12.     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”. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 14.     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. 15.     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; Grigoryev and Igamberdiyeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 10970/12, 12 February 2019, about inadequate redress for unlawful deprivation of liberty in the context of administrative-offence prosecution for participation in public events; 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); Gankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, §§ 25-44, 31 May 2016, as to the applicant’s absence at the appeal hearings; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in administrative offence proceedings in order to identify, locate and arrest him; 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; Teslenko and Others v. Russia , nos.   49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 99-145, 5 April 2022, concerning prosecution for administrative offences for calling on voters not to vote for a specific political party or to abstain from voting in elections; mutatis mutandis , Sürek v.   Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 58, ECHR 1999-IV, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia , no. 38004/12, §§ 197-201, 17 July 2018, concerning administrative conviction for discreditation of the Russian Army in the context of anti-war protest actions; 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 16.     The Court has further examined the complaint under Article 6 raised by the applicant in application no. 35843/21, and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of that provision. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 17.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 12 and 15 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.     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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Holds that Ms Borodina, the widow of the applicant, Mr Borodin, in application no. 35843/21, has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late husband; 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, dismisses the complaints raised under Article 6 of the Convention by the applicant in application no. 35843/21 as inadmissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that there has been 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)   hat 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]     44850/18 11/09/2018 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich KIRPICHEV (KIRPICHENKO) 1984     Rally against falsification of presidential elections   St Petersburg   28/01/2018     Rally against the war in Ukraine   St Petersburg   03/03/2022 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days (art.   19.3 §   1), fine of RUB   15,000 (art. 20.2 §   5)       fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court, 16/03/2018 and 19/04/2018             St Petersburg City Court 05/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: - from 7.00 p.m. on 13/03/2018 to 14/03/2028, - from 7.30 p.m. on 03/03/2022 to 04/03/2022. Both times the applicant was detained until the hearings in his administrative-offence cases;   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: St Petersburg City Court, 16/03/2018, 19/04/2018, 14/05/2018 and 05/04/2022;   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under art. 5.12 § 1 of the CAO (production or dissemination of printed, audio-visual, or other campaigning material in breach of the electoral legislation) for distribution of leaflets against the elections on 10/02/2018; fine of RUB 1,000; final decision: 14/05/2018, St   Petersburg City Court;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 14/03/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (the appeal was considered on 16/03/2018);   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under Art. 19.3 § 1 (administrative detention), and under Art. 20.2 § 5 (fine) of the CAO   5,000     52954/18 25/10/2018 Aleksey Sergeyevich BELOZEROV 1988 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally in support of Mr   A   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 15 days, fine of RUB   170,000 St Petersburg City Court, 16/05/2018 and 18/05/2018 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”: 1) from 12/06/2017 to 14/06/2017, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case (complaint raised in the compensation proceedings following the quashing of the applicant’s administrative conviction under art. 19.3 § 1 of the CAO for his participation in a rally in 2017; his action was partly granted, and he was awarded about 580   EUR for pre-trial detention and post-conviction detention; final decision: Single Judge of the Supreme Court, 08/12/2020),   2) from 4.30 p.m. on 05/05/2018 (the applicant spent more than 4 hours in the police van) to 06/05/2018, 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 16/05/2018 and 18/05/2018;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - The applicant was convicted twice - under art. 19.3 § 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 § 8 (fine) of the CAO for his participation in the same public event of 05/05/2018   5,000     56135/18 25/10/2018 Andrey Andreyevich GRAF 1991     Rally against Mr   Putin’s re ‑ election as President   St Petersburg   05/05/2018     Anti ‑ government rally   St Petersburg   07/10/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000                 administrative detention of 15 days St Petersburg City Court 26/07/2018               St Petersburg City Court 11/10/2018 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 4.15 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 9.15 a.m. on 06/05/2018. Following the discontinuation of the proceedings under art. 19.3 § 1 of the CAO, the applicant brought a compensation action and was granted RUB 3,000 (38 EUR). Final decision: 24/12/2020, Supreme Court of Russia;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of sets of administrative-offence proceedings which ended with the final decisions of St Petersburg City Court on 24/07/2018 and of 11/10/2018   5,000     25403/19 23/04/2019 Aleksey Nikolayevich NIKITIN 1969     Rally against pension reform   Krasnodar   09/09/2018           "Stroll"/rally against raising prices for public transport (14 participants)   Krasnodar   24/12/2018       Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Krasnodar   31/01/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO                   article 20.2 § 2 of CAO                     article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days               administrative detention of 5   days                   fine of RUB   20,000 Krasnodar Regional Court, decision of 25/09/2018 adopted in the applicant’s absence and received on 26/10/2018     Krasnodar Regional Court 06/02/2019                   Krasnodar Regional Court 09/12/2021 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 6.00 p.m. on 26/12/2018 to at least 2.00 p.m. on 27/12/2018, 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Krasnodar Regional Court, 25/09/2018, 06/02/2019 and 06/03/2019;   Art. 6 (1) – applicant’s absence from administrative-offence proceedings - The applicant came to the appeal hearings scheduled on 25/09/2018. He waited for 6 hours in front of the judge’s office, in vain, he was never called. On 26/09/2018 he complained to the president of the court. By a letter of 26/10/2018, the Krasnodar Regional Court answered that the appeal decision was adopted on 25/09/2018. There is no assessment in the decision of the issue of the applicant’s absence;   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Krasnodar, 20/12/2018, solo demonstration against rising prices for public transport; administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO to a fine of RUB   10,000; final decision: Krasnodar Regional Court, 06/03/2019;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 27/12/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   5,000     28534/21 02/06/2021 Vadim Vilyevich KHAYRULLIN 1972 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Kaliningrad   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 5 days Kaliningrad Region Court 11/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the 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. on 31/01/2021 to 11.00 a.m. on 02/02/2021, hearing on 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Kaliningrad Region Court, 11/02/2021 and 23/03/2021;   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Solo picketing in support to Belarus on 29/08/2020 in Kaliningrad; the applicant was convicted under art. 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and sentenced to an administrative fine of RUB   20,000; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, 23/03/2021   5,000     28773/21 11/05/2021 Dmitriy Viktorovich TOLMACHEV 1970 Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Political rally   Irkutsk   31/01/2021     Rally in support to Mr A. Navalnyy   Irkutsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000           administrative detention of 9 days Irkutsk Regional Court 23/09/2021         Irkutsk Regional Court 29/04/2021 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: Irkutsk Regional Court, 29/04/2021 and 23/09/2021 5,000     29826/21 21/05/2021 Gleb Maksimovich SHIN 1998 Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich Belgorod Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Belgorod   31/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community works of 20 hours Belgorod Regional Court 15/03/2021   3,500     30438/21 15/05/2021 Boris Yulyevich KAGARLITSKIY 1958 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Rally against the constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/11/2020 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 8.30 p.m. on 15/07/2020 to 2.30 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, 16/11/2020   5,000     31692/21 07/06/2021 Ramazan Ramazanovich RADZHABOV 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/03/2021 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 4.51 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 1.00 a.m. on 24/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 16/03/2021   5,000   32169/21 11/06/2021 Andrey Ramilevich BOYKO 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 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 10.08 a.m. to 4.35 p.m. on 02/02/2021;   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, 28/04/2021   5,000   32719/21 14/06/2021 Konstantin Olegovich DYDZINSKIY 1975     Rally (collection of signatures) against constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 § 8   of CAO fine of RUB   200,000 Moscow City Court 14/12/2020 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 10.00 p.m. on 15/07/2020 to 4.30 a.m. on 16/07/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 30/07/2020;   6,000   32752/21 01/06/2021 Kamil Ramilevich GALEYEV 1992 Kurakina Polina Sergeyevna Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 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;   Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and his subsequent conviction   9,800   33306/21 13/06/2021   Anton Ivanovich SORVACHEV 1982   Petr Viktorovich BORKOV 1986   Petr Viktorovich SHVAREV 1993 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Syktyvkar   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fines of RUB   10,000, 17,000 and 10,000 respectively of the three applicants Supreme Court Komi Republic, 31/03/2021, 07/04/2021 and 07/04/2021, respectively 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: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 31/03/2021, 07/04/2021 and 07/04/2021 (in respect of each of three applicants) 4,000   33456/21 01/06/2021 Dmitriy Nikolayevich SKURIKHIN 1974     Commemoration of Boris Nemtsov   St Petersburg   29/02/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 01/12/2020 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”, in the morning on 23/01/2023 (in order to prevent the applicant’s participation in the rally in support to Mr   A.   Navalnyy), then from 7.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 24/01/2021, 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 02/02/2021 and 05/07/2022;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction for having made calls on 17/01/2021 to participate in an unauthorised public event in support of Mr A. Navalnyy scheduled for 23/01/2021, art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, administrative detention of 20   days. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 02/02/2021;   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - On 06/03/2022 the applicant held a solo picket in St   Petersburg, against the war in Ukraine. He was administratively convicted, under art. 20.3.3 §   1 of the CAO (discreditation of the Russian army) and fined to RUB 45,000. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 05/07/2022           5,000   33806/21 03/06/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BOGOMAZ 1976 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Smolensk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   14,000 Smolensk Regional Court 17/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Smolensk Regional Court, 17/03/2021 5,000   34091/21 06/06/2021 Albina Romanovna YANOVA 1993 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Vladivostok   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Primorye Regional Court 20/04/2021 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 2.56 p.m. to 10.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 20/04/2021   5,000   35049/21 25/06/2021 Pavel Yuryevich TEMNIKOV 1986 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 21/05/2021 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 11 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021;   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, 21/05/2021   5,000   35139/21 25/06/2021 Dmitriy Andreyevich SKIRTA 1997 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 3   days Moscow City Court 08/04/2021 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 p.m. to 09.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/04/2021   5,000   35140/21 25/06/2021 Kirill Aleksandrovich KARPOV 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 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 and 11.10 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: Moscow City Court, 19/05/2021 5,000   35144/21 25/06/2021 Georgiy Andreyevich SAPOZHNIKOV 1988 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 10/03/2021 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 5.10 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 7.00 p.m. on 25/01/2021, 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, 10/03/2021   5,000   35147/21 25/06/2021 Anna Yuryevna KUTSENKO 2001 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 20/04/2021 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 11.00 a.m. to 4.10 p.m. on 02/02/2021;   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, 20/04/2021 5,000   35165/21 25/06/2021 Dmitriy Vladimirovich LUKIN 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 20/04/2021 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 10.30 a.m. to 5.10 p.m. on 02/02/2021; the applicant spent 2h30 in the police van;   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, 20/04/2021   5,000   35166/21 25/06/2021 Oleg Anatolyevich MAKAYEV 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/04/2021 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 2.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/04/2021   5,000   35188/21 18/06/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich ANDREYEV 1975 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 18/02/2021 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. 23/01/2021 to 7.00 p.m. on 25/01/2021, 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, 18/02/2021   5,000   35688/21 02/07/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich GRUZDEV 1972 Kurochko Yelena Viktorovna Vologda Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Vologda   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Vologda Regional Court 11/03/2021   3,500   35818/21 27/06/2021 Sergey Mikhaylovich SKVORTSOV 1990 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Lipetsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Lipetsk Regional Court 18/03/2021 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 2.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 2.00 a.m. on 24/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 18/03/2021   5,000   35843/21 31/05/2021 Vadim Dmitriyevich BORODIN 1960 In March 2022 the applicant died. His widow Ms   T.   Borodina expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf       Rally in support of Mr A Navalnyy   Magnitogorsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 31/03/2021   3,500   36391/21 07/07/2021 Yana Igorevna TEPLITSKAYA 1991 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Rally in support of the persons accused in the "Set" criminal case   St Petersburg   22/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 02/02/2021 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 12.45 p.m. to 10.20 p.m. on 22/06/2020, no record of the applicant’s detention was drawn up;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 02/02/2021   5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.