CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MAZANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2954/18 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 November 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mazanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) during the periods indicated in the appended table. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 §   1 of the Convention. 8.     The Court reiterates that that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom , 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III). 9.     The Court has previously examined complaints brought by persons arrested and detained in similar circumstances in Russia. In the cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, 13   February 2018, Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, 8 October 2019, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, and Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, 28   November 2017, the Court has already found a violation in respect of the 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 on 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 applicants’ detention, as described in the appended table, was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, §§   101 ‑ 11, 27   November 2012, concerning excessive length of pre-trial detention, Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings;   Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measure taken against participants in solo manifestations, Frumkin v. Russia , no.   74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies, and Tsvetkova and Others , cited above, §§   178-91, concerning lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal and immediate execution of a sentence of administrative detention; Korneyeva , cited above, §§   44-65, concerning right not to be tried or punished twice; and Yartsev v.   Russia , no. 16683/17, §§   22-38, 20 July 2021, concerning restrictions on the right to freedom of expression). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     Some applicants raised additional complaints under Articles 5, 6 and   10 of the Convention. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers 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; Declares the complaints concerning the unlawfulness of the applicants’ arrest and detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and the other complaints under the well-established law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and decides that it is not necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) (see the appended table); Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     2954/18 11/12/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich MAZANOV 1990 Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich St Petersburg 12/06/2017, 2.30 p.m. 13/06/2017, 4.30 p.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – decisions by the St Petersburg City Court, on 20/06/2017 (7 days’ administrative arrest) and on 11/07/2017 (fine of RUB   10,000),   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - convicted twice for participation in one public event in St   Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles   19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO (see above) 3,900     3031/18 20/12/2017 Pavel Valeryevich CHUGUNOV 1981 Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich St Petersburg 12/06/2017, 4.10 p.m. 14/06/2017 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions were taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 23/06/2017 (15 days’ administrative detention) and on 08/08/2017 (fine of RUB 10,000),   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - convicted twice for participation in one public event in St   Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles   19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO (see above) 3,900     3078/18 08/12/2017 Anna Vladimirovna TROITSKAYA 1972 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg 12/06/2017 14/06/2017 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – decisions by the St Petersburg City Court, on 21/06/2017, fine of RUB   10,000 and 4 days’ administrative arrest ordered by the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 14/06/2017,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - convicted twice for participation in one public event in St   Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles   19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO (see above) 3,900     3166/18 18/12/2017 Yegor Vladislavovich ARISTOV 1992 Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich St Petersburg 12/06/2017, 2.10 p.m. 13/06/2017, unspecified time Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions were taken by the St   Petersburg City Court on 20/06/2017 (7 days’ administrative arrest) and on 18/07/2017 (fine of RUB   10,000);   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - convicted twice for participation in one public event in St   Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles   19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO (see above) 3,900     3179/18 21/12/2017 Aleksandr Ivanovich LEBEDEV 1997 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg 12/06/2017, 2   p.m. 13/06/2017, unspecified time Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision was taken by the St   Petersburg City Court on 24/04/2018 (fine of RUB   10,000);   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was charged and convicted for participation in one public event in St   Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles   19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO and sentenced to fines of RUB   500 and 10,000, respectively   3,900     3266/18 23/12/2017 Yevgeniya Alekseyevna CHIVILEVA 1989     27/02/2022, 5.15 p.m.   12/06/2017, 4.10 p.m. 28/02/2022, 3.30 p.m.   13/06/2017, unspecified time Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect on two occasions: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art.   27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under Article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO for participation on 27/02/2022 in public gathering in St   Petersburg / administrative detention of 9 days/ final - St Petersburg City Court on 02/03/2022,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was charged and convicted for participation in one public event in St   Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles   19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO and sentenced to fines of RUB   1,000 and 10,000 respectively; relevant final decisions were taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 20/07/2017 (Art.19.3(1)) and 25/07/2017 (Art.20.2(5)),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - absence of the prosecuting party in the first-instance court in all sets of the proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 28/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO – final decision: St   Petersburg City Court on 02/03/2022 5,000     3490/18 18/12/2017 Aleksandr Yuryevich GEDZ 1996 Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich St Petersburg 12/06/2017 13/06/2017 Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019),   Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 20/06/2017 (7 days’ administrative arrest); Decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 18/07/2017 (fine of RUB 10,000),   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2 § 5 of CAO – St   Petersburg City Court on 20/06/2017, St Petersburg City Court on 18/07/2017 3,900     3601/18 18/12/2017 Denis STADNICHUK 1977 Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich St Petersburg 12/06/2017 14/06/2017 Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art.   27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121 ‑ 22, 10 April 2018), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 04/07/2017 (fine of RUB 15,000) and by the St Petersburg City Court on 19/06/2017 (15   days’ administrative arrest),   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: convictions under article 19.3 § 1 of CAO and article 20.2 § 5 of CAO by the St Petersburg City Court on 19/06/2017 and by the St Petersburg City Court on 04/07/2017 3,900     3630/18 18/12/2017 Svyatoslav Mikhaylovich CHUMAKOV 1991 Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich St Petersburg 12/06/2017 14/06/2017 Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art.   27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121 ‑ 22, 10 April 2018),   Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Decisions by the St Petersburg City Court on 19/06/2017 (1-day administrative arrest); and by the St Petersburg City Court on 06/07/2017 (fine of RUB 10,000),   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: convictions under article 19.3 § 1 of CAO and article 20.2 § 5 of CAO - St Petersburg City Court on 19/06/2017, and St Petersburg City Court on 06/07/2017 3,900   2976/22 07/12/2021 Revaz SHMERTS 1980 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow 08/06/2021, 8.05 a.m. (arrest record indicates allegedly incorrect time of arrest - 08.55 p.m.) 08/06/2021, 9 p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v.   Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12   others, §§   76-79, 26 June 2018) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 08/06/2021 – pending as of 16/09/2022 on the charges of fraud. Courts: Tverskoy District Court; Moscow City Court; Specific defects: fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint 3,900   3961/22 03/01/2022 Aleksey Vladimirovich VOLKOV 1972 Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Moscow 21/04/2021 21/04/2021 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), complaint raised on appeal Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 27/08/2021, 5 days’ administrative arrest,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate enforcement of the administrative arrest ordered by the first-instance court given absence of the suspensive effect of the appeal proceedings in the Russian law 3,900   5476/22 12/01/2022 Zhanna Rafinovna INKINA 1982     18/08/2021 23/08/2021 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §   67, 13 February 2018)   3,000   7042/22 11/01/2022 Fedor Aleksandrovich GUBERT 1990 Balysheva Irina Yuryevna Cherepanovo 03/04/2021, 6.35 p.m. 04/04/2021, 3.45 a.m. (the applicant raised this complaint before the Novosibirsk Regional Court, appeal decision of 13/10/2012) Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v.   Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12   others, §§   76-79, 26 June 2018)   3,000   7244/22 16/01/2022 Sergey Ivanovich DEMIDOV 2001 Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow 07/07/2021, 3.01 a.m. 09/07/2021, 12.30 p.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art.   29.6(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 16/07/2021, Moscow City Court, administrative detention of 15 days 3,900   10582/22 16/02/2022 Viktoriya Markovna IVLEVA-YORK 1956 Yuriy Vadimovich SAMODUROV 1951   Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg 20/11/2021, 1.10 p.m. 22/11/2021, 6.30 p.m. Applicants taken to the police station as administrative suspects: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art.   29.6(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)   3,000   14482/22 15/02/2022 Rinat Karamatovich SHARIPOV 1951     05/02/2019, 6 p.m. 07/02/2019, 11 a.m.   The applicant’s administrative conviction of unruly behaviour was quashed on appeal on 25/03/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic. He sued the State authorities for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful detention and was awarded 30,000 Russian roubles (final decision by the Supreme Court of Russia on 27/12/2021) (approximately EUR   375). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art.   27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121 ‑ 22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)   2,600   18110/22 15/03/2022 Kristina Igorevna TIMAKOVA 1996 Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Moscow 22/10/2018 22/10/2018 (The applicant complained about her unlawful detention before the domestic courts: final domestic decision by the Supreme Court of Russia on 17/09/2021).     Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 §   1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018); Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art.   27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017) ,   3,000   20907/22 11/04/2022 Kseniya Dmitriyevna KLIMOVA 1997 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg 19/09/2021 19/09/2021 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - fine of RUB   5,000, final decision on 15/10/2021 by the Kirov Regional Court 3,900   22543/22 23/03/2022 Yelena Yevgenyevna LOBOVA 1967 Olgerdt Oksana Gennadyevna Moscow 03/02/2021, 12.10 a.m. 04/02/2021, 7 p.m.   (The applicant raised a complaint of the unlawful detention in the administrative-offence proceedings. The applicant was convicted under 20.2 § 6.1 CAO and was fined 15,000 Russian roubles. Final decision on 23/09/2021 by the Moscow City Court Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)     3,000   40946/22 04/08/2022 Anastasiya Pavlovna MASHCHENKO 1995 Gak Irina Vladimirovna Rostov-on-Don 28/02/2022, 8   p.m. 01/03/2022, 10.40 p.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 05/04/2022, sentenced to 7 days’ administrative arrest,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court   3,900   50932/22 09/10/2022 Kristina Andreyevna SHIBALOVA 1989     24/02/2022, 8.09 p.m. 25/02/2022, 2.35 a.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no.   47598/08, § 21, 28   November 2017) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/06/2022, fine of RUB   20,000,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - manifestation against the war in Ukraine, Moscow, Tverskaya, 24/02/2022, Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/06/2022 5,000   55441/22 22/10/2022 Irina Zimilovna VLADIMIRSKAYA 1970 Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna Moscow 01/03/2022, 9 p.m. 02/03/2022, 3.45 a.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 23/06/2022, fine of RUB   20,000,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 01/03/2022 the applicant held a solo picket and was arrested. She had a sign with the inscription "No war". On 16/03/2022 the applicant was convicted of the administrative offence under Art. 20.5 § 5 of CAO, upheld by the final decision of the Moscow City Court on 23/06/2022 5,000   55971/22 12/11/2022 Nikolay Vladimirovich UTEMOV 1992 Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod 25/04/2022, 10.50 p.m. 26/04/2022, 1.35 a.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 12/07/2022, fine of RUB 30,000 3,900   57029/22 17/11/2022 Tatyana Konstantinovna BAYKOVA 1976 Filatchev Oleg Vladimirovich Moscow 06/03/2022 06/03/2022 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision on 19/07/2022, by the Moscow City Court, sentence of the fine of RUB   20,000 3,900   4797/23 10/01/2023 Anton Borisovich BOCHANOV 1986 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod 11/09/2022, 6.14 p.m. 11/09/2022, 8.14 p.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019)   3,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.