CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; 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 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF YAKHNOVETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 32174/21 and 27 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 January 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Yakhnovets and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 December 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. They also, except for the fourth applicant, raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2   others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17   January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 13.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 489, 7 February 2017, Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); 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; and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (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 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   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 (code of administrative offences, CAO) 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 (in euros) [1]     32174/21 11/06/2021 Viktoriya Viktorovna YAKHNOVETS 1966 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Rostov Regional Court 10/02/2021 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 12.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 5.00 p.m. on 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 10/02/2021;     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     33066/21 04/06/2021 1) Nikolay Yevgenyevich VOKUYEV 1986   2) Stanislav Mikhaylovich OKULOV 1984   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Syktyvkar   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fines of RUB   10,000 for each of the applicants Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 31/03/2021 (first applicant) and 07/04/2021 (second applicant) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 31/03/2021 and 07/04/2021. 3,500 to each applicant     33571/21 22/06/2021 Valeriya Mikhaylovna IVANOVA 1996 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Velikiy Novgorod   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Novgorod Regional Court 25/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.15 p.m. to 11.30 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 - final decisions: Novgorod Regional Court, 25/02/2021.   4,000     35257/21 24/06/2021 Liliya Vasilyevna LOBKO 1940 Tykhta Vitaliy Dmitriyevich Khabarovsk Rally in support of Mr Furgal   Khabarovsk   09/11/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 24/12/2020   3,000     35379/21 16/06/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich GRESKO 1974 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow Meeting Mr   Navalnyy at the Vnukovo Airport of Moscow   Moscow   17/01/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention for 12 days Moscow City Court 20/02/2021 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 6.10 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 17/01/2021,   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, 20/02/2021     5,000     36383/21 30/06/2021 Nikita Igorevich CHESNOKOV 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don   31/01/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO administrative detention for 3   days Rostov Regional 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 2.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 1.00 p.m. on 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 28/04/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     36389/21 05/07/2021 Valentin Sergeyevich KVASHNIKOV 1978     Rally in support of Mr Furgal   Khabarovsk   23/07/2020 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 21/01/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Khabarovsk Regional Court, 21/01/2021 and 04/06/2021.   3,500     36506/21 27/06/2021 Vadim Vyacheslavovich ZUBKOV 1996 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 11/02/2021 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 10.00 a.m. on 08/02/2021 until the hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case on the same day,   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, 11/02/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.   5,000     37916/21 16/07/2021 Olga Alekseyevna KOMOLOVA 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 14/04/2021 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 11.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 7.50   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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 14/04/2021,   4,000   38412/21 02/07/2021 Dmitriy Vladimirovich VILSHANSKIY 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 12/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 11.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 8.30   p.m. on 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021,     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   38516/21 14/07/2021 Boris Vladimirovich SARAPULOV 1957 Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Irkutsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Irkutsk Regional Court 01/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court, 01/06/2021 3,500   38906/21 14/07/2021 Artur Igorevich SAYAPIN 1994 Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich Khabarovsk Rally in support of Mr Furgal   Khabarovsk   25/08/2020 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 2 days (enforced), changed later to a fine of RUB 10,000 (not paid) Khabarovsk Regional Court 04/02/2021 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 midnight on 04/09/2020 to 10.30   a.m. on 05/09/2020,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the administrative detention was enforced immediately after the decision of the first-instance court on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.   5,000   38914/21 22/07/2021 Yegor Nikolayevich BELOV 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 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 1.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/05/2021.   4,000   39896/21 27/07/2021 Pavel Nikolayevich LUSHAKOV 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 10/02/2021 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 on 11.00 a.m. 02/02/2021 to 8.00   p.m. 03/02/2021, the applicant was not released after the administrative offence record had been compiled; 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: Moscow City Court, 10/02/2021,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.   5,000   40196/21 27/07/2021 Petr Aleksandrovich MAKAROV 2000 Shindyapin Arkadiy Vitalyevich Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.25   p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 05/02/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   40444/21 27/07/2021 Sergey Yuryevich AFANASYEV 1965 Shindyapin Arkadiy Vitalyevich Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.50   p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 05/02/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher - 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   40532/21 30/07/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich SMIRNOV 1990 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Yaroslavl   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Yaroslavl Regional Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.25   p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case. 5,000   40877/21 02/08/2021 Klim Dmitriyevich BONDAR 2002 Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 8   days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.50 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 5.00 p.m. on 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 05/02/2021.   5,000   41620/21 06/08/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich OZEROV 1976 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 15 days Moscow City Court 12/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.40   p.m. 31/01/2021 to midnight on 01/02/2021,     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   42996/21 10/08/2021 Valentina Yevgenyevna VOLKOVA 1978 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk Collective recording a video petition to the US President and the world community regarding the poor ecological conditions   Chelyabinsk   12/12/2020 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 10/02/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 10/02/2021. 3,500   43200/21 11/08/2021 Roman Alekseyevich ZHURAVLEV 1995 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Rally in support of Mr 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 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 4.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 2.30   p.m. on 24/01/2021 4,000   43242/21 09/08/2021 Viktor Yuryevich YEZHOV 1966 Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 12/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 4.30   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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021.   5,000   43501/21 18/08/2021 Vyacheslav Nikolayevich TITOV 1988 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 24/03/2021 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 11.30   p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 12.00   a.m. on 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 24/03/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   43680/21 10/08/2021 Vladimir Aleksandrovich LAZAR 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 04/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 4.30 p.m. to an unspecified time 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, 04/03/2021.         4,000   44318/21 09/08/2021 Rinat Safayevich SALIKHOV 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention for 8 days Moscow City Court 10/02/2021 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 11.45 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 9.15   a.m. on 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/02/2021,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   44678/21 26/08/2021 Darya Dmitriyevna LEVKINA 1998 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Kurgan   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Kurgan Regional Court 17/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Kurgan Regional Court, 17/03/2021.   3,500   47849/21 08/09/2021 Yevgeniy Vadimovich ROYZMAN 1962 Fedotova Yuliya Yekaterinburg Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg   23/01/2021   Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021     Rally (march) in support of Mr   Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000           fine of RUB 20,000             fine of RUB 20,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 20/05/2021       Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 13/05/2021 and 20/05/2021   Sverdlovsk Regional Court 26/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 13/05/2021, 20/05/2021 and 26/05/2021;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls to participate at two unauthorised public rallies in support to Mr   A.   Navalnyy, scheduled on 31/01/2021 and on 21/04/2021, under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, administrative detention for one day, final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 13/05/2021 (both proceedings). 5,000   50470/21 01/10/2021 Vladislav Vladimirovich BASHKINOV 2000 Solovyev Stanislav Vyacheslavovich Moscow Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 02/04/2021 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 6.00 p.m. to 10.30 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/04/2021.   4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.