CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sAE9BC6AF { height:100.7pt } .sD32E4627 { height:65.4pt } .s75C60776 { height:52.8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SAVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 43267/21 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 January 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Savchenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 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 disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of nationwide protests in support of the jailed opposition leader, Aleksey Navalnyy. They 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 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); and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised 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 11 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 15.     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 well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention; 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); Hold (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 11 January 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   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 per applicant (in euros) [1]     43267/21 07/08/2021 Artem Vasilyevich SAVCHENKO 1985     Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Rostov-on-Don   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days Rostov Regional Court 03/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.25 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 1 p.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;   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. 5,000     43272/21 17/08/2021 Dmitriy Viktorovich BURAK 1985 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days Moscow City Court 10/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021.       5,000     43415/21 10/08/2021 Eduard Georgiyevich MINOLIS 1998 Polyakova Veronika Valeryevna Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 12 days Moscow City Court 10/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.40 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 8 a.m. on 03/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   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. 5,000     43422/21 23/08/2021 Vitaliy Muzafarovich MIRZOYEV 1973 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Samara   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 01/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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. 4,000     43434/21 23/08/2021 Aleksey Sergeyevich BELOUSOV 2002 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kursk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kursk Regional Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 6.50 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. 4,000     43444/21 23/08/2021 Roman Sergeyevich ZEMSKOV 1982 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Samara   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community work Samara Regional Court 06/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.45 p.m. until 9.50 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. 4,000     43481/21 11/08/2021 Nikolay Dmitriyevich VOLKOV 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 8 p.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;   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. 5,000     43492/21 12/08/2021 Viktoriya Romualdovna ZAREMBA 1999 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   03/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 11 days Moscow City Court 12/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.15 a.m. until afternoon on 03/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000     43638/21 11/08/2021 Daniil Vadimovich YELETSKIY 2000 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kazan   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 10/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report. 4,000   43646/21 11/08/2021 Renata Maratovna LUKOYANOVA 2001 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kazan   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 10/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report. 4,000   43778/21 23/08/2021 Roman Sergeyevich KUZMIN 1981 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Yaroslavl   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Yaroslavl Regional Court 06/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 10.20 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. 4,000   43786/21 26/08/2021 Taras Arturovich GORELOV 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Vladivostok   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Primorye Regional Court 19/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.30 p.m. until 7 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. 4,000   43809/21 26/08/2021 Ivan Petrovich SAVCHENKO 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Rostov-on-Don   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days Rostov Regional Court 02/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 6   p.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;   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. 5,000   43822/21 23/08/2021 Albert Fakhimovich ISKUZHIN 1983     Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Ufa   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 01/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.15 p.m. until 5.30 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. 4,000   43831/21 26/08/2021 Marina Yuryevna NIKOLAYEVA 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kazan   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 17/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.50 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 7.40 p.m. on 01/02/2021. 4,000   43849/21 10/08/2021 Aleksandr Fedorovich BEKHTOLD 1950 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy   Ryazan   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Ryazan Regional Court 04/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. until 8 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. 4,000   43856/21 10/08/2021 Mikhail Igorevich KIRILLOV 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 8 days Moscow City Court 10/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.45 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 11.30 a.m. on 03/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   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. 5,000   43858/21 10/08/2021 Aleksandr Ivanovich DAVYDOV 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 22/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 3 p.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;   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. 5,000   43862/21 10/08/2021 Aleksandra Igorevna BOBROVA 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 15 days Moscow City Court 03/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.25 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 8 p.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;   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. 5,000   43902/21 23/08/2021 Yekaterina Nikolayevna FILIPPENKO 1989 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Magnitogorsk   31/01/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 2 days Chelyabinsk Regional Court 16/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 2.40 p.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. 5,000   43929/21 13/08/2021 Aleksey Igorevich PARKIN 1984 Karagodina Veronika Yuryevna St Petersburg Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days St Petersburg City Court 09/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 5.37 p.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.       5,000   44010/21 30/08/2021 Anton Olegovich TARANOV 1984 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 02/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.10 p.m. until 11 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. 4,000   44078/21 30/08/2021 Sergey Sergeyevich SERGEYEV 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 09/02/2021 (The administrative case file was returned to the first-instance court (the Nagatinskiy District Court in Moscow) and was available in its registry on 03/03/2021 (the applicant submits a copy of the electronic tracking system available on the District Court’s Internet site) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 8 p.m. on 04/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   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. 5,000   44133/21 30/08/2021 Kirill Stepanovich GERASIMOV 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 18/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.45 a.m. until 4.30 a.m. on 03/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   44142/21 30/08/2021 Ilya Sergeyevich DUMANSKIY 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 02/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6.15 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 4 p.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;   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. 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.