CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 15 février 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 } .s4EFA53D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB67E2423 { height:145.2pt } .s3E39756B { height:58.15pt } .s17EBE089 { height:78.35pt } .s5A352BAF { height:355.15pt } .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 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DMITRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 4604/17 and 38 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 February 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dmitriyeva 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 25 January 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. Some 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   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 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. 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, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019, and Timishev v.   Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017 as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Novikova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, related to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; 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; Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 62-65 concerning the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence. 14.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 15.     Mr Gumerbayev (application no.   3864/18) alleged a violation of his rights set out in Articles   6 and 11 of the Convention in connection with his participation in a public assembly on 14 May 2017 and ensuing administrative proceedings. Mr Shuvatov (application no.   21312/21) complained under Article   6 of the Convention about the lack of impartiality of domestic courts. The Court has examined the complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of applications nos.   3864/18 and 21312/21 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos.   3864/18 and 21312/21 inadmissible; 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 the appended table); Holds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the criminal (administrative) proceedings against them; 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 15 February 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]     4604/17 04/01/2017 Mariya Borisovna DMITRIYEVA 1961     Manifestation in support of N.   Savchenko   Moscow   08/03/2016     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000         fine of RUB   1,000 Moscow City Court 08/07/2016       Moscow City Court 28/07/2016 Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted under Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO by the final decision adopted by Moscow City Court on 08/07/2016 and under Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO by final decision of Moscow City Court on 28/07/2016 concerning the same event on 08/03/2016. The applicant complains about being punished twice for the same offence 3,500     8385/17 14/01/2017 Lyudmila Andreyevna PUDRIK 1955     Manifestation in support of N.   Savchenko   Moscow   08/03/2016 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,     article   19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000;     fine of RUB   500 Moscow City Court 20/07/2016 (both decisions on the same day) Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - convicted twice for the same public event (under Articles 20.2 § 5 and 19.3 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences) 3,500     12156/17 30/01/2017 Aleksandr Vladimirovich EYSMAN 1974     Public gathering dedicated to the Constitution Day   Moscow   12/12/2015   Public gathering   Moscow   30/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000             fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 02/08/2016           Moscow City Court 04/10/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - administrative arrest and detention on 30/05/2018 - 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, raised in administrative proceedings;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – three sets of the administrative offence proceedings which ended with the final decisions on 02/08/2016, 04/10/2018, 16/01/2017, by the Moscow City Court;   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – on 08/03/2016, Moscow, Manezhnaya square, a solo demonstration next to the Zhukov monument with a banner relating to Savchenko; article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000; conviction by the final decision of the Moscow City Court on 16/01/2017; rotation - event classified as assembly post facto, ban on public events next to the Residence of the President of the Russian Federation (Zhukov monument on Manezhnaya square) 4,000     37727/17 06/05/2017 Yelena Yuryevna STARSHININA 1977 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Hunger strike in support of housing rights near the United Russia’s headquarters   Moscow   01/07/2016   Hunger strike in support of housing rights near the United Russia’s headquarters   Moscow   01/07/2016   Hunger strike in support of housing rights near the United Russia’s headquarters   Moscow   02/07/2016 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000                   fine of RUB   10,000                   fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/05/2017                 Moscow City Court 16/11/2016                 Moscow City Court 22/05/2017 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 prosecutor in three sets of the proceedings which ended with the final decisions on 16/11/2016 and 22/05/2017, Moscow City Court 4,000     2748/18 15/12/2017 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich TURBIN 1992     Anti-corruption Manifestation   St   Petersburg   12/06/2017   Anti-corruption Manifestation   St   Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO arrest of 5   days           fine of RUB   10,000 St   Petersburg City Court 16/06/2017         St   Petersburg City Court 30/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - the complaint is raised in respect of both sets of the proceedings against the applicant which ended on 16/06/2017 and 30/06/2017.   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - final decisions on 16/06/2017, by the St   Petersburg City Court, Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO; and on 30/06/2017, by the St   Petersburg City Court, Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings. 5,000     3212/18 29/12/2017 Anatoliy Viktorovich ZVEREV 1993 Smorodina Polina Romanovna St Peterburg Anti-corruption manifestation   St   Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,   article   20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000   fine of RUB   1,000 St   Petersburg City Court 03/07/2017 (both decisions issued on the same day) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention at the police station from 12/06/2017 to 13/06/2017 – the applicant was 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled. The applicant raised the relevant complaint in the course of the administrative proceedings;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - final decisions on 03/07/2017, by the St Petersburg City Court, Art.   19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings. 4,000     3439/18 25/12/2017 Nikolay Nikolayevich MANKO 1967 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Truck Drivers’ Manifestation   Khimki, Moscow Region   21/05/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,   article   20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   500   fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow Regional Court 06/07/2017 (both decisions on the same day) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 21/05/2017 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence. The applicant raises the complaint in the course of the administrative proceedings against him;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - decisions on 06/07/2017, by the Moscow City Court, Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     3641/18 18/12/2017 Pavel Vladimirovich SHALAGIN 1985 Yesipova Alina Vladimirovna St   Petersburg Anti-corruption Manifestation   St   Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article   19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   11,000 St   Petersburg City Court 29/06/2017 (both decisions on the same day) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escort to the police station on 12/06/2017-13/06/2017 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; unrecorded detention until escort to the court on 14/06/2017. The applicant raised the complaint in the course of the administrative proceedings against him;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - final decision in both sets of proceedings - 29/06/2017, St   Petersburg City Court; Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings.     4,000     3864/18 26/12/2017 Iskander Rafailevich GUMERBAYEV 1991     Anti-corruption Manifestation   Kazan   14/05/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 35   hours Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic 21/06/2017 (sent by the Supreme Court to the applicant on 26/06/2017) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party 4,000   5252/18 02/01/2018 Anastasiya Vyacheslavovna KOVROVA 1987 Yesipova Alina Vladimirovna St   Petersburg Anti-Corruption Manifestation   St   Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,   article   20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000   fine of RUB   600 St   Petersburg City Court 03/07/2017 (both decisions on the same day) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention at the police station from 12/06/2017 to 13/06/2017 - (1) 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; (2) Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - decisions on 03/07/2017, by the St Petersburg City Court, Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art.   20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings   4,000   7616/18 10/01/2018 Aleksey Mikhaylovich IVANOV 1990 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Opposition rally   St   Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article   19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 fine of RUB   1,000 St   Petersburg City Court 11/07/2017 (both decisions on the same day) Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was punished twice for essentially the same action under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings 3,500   13129/18 22/02/2018 Igor Nikolayevich FINKOVSKIY 1964 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Truck Drivers’ Manifestation   Khimki, Moscow Region   21/05/2017 article   20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow Regional Court 22/08/2017 Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - decisions on 22/08/2017, by the St Petersburg City Court and on 16/08/2017 by the St Peterburg City Court, Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 21 ‑ 22/05/2017 in excess of 3   hours (arrested on 21/05/2017 at 2 p.m., released on 23/05/2017); 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 on 22/08/2017 4,000   19607/18 30/03/2018 Rafail Viktorovich SHEPELEV 1970     March of the "Artpodgotovka" movement   Ekaterinburg   23/07/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 21/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   3,500   21716/18 25/04/2018 Polina Pavlovna MIKHAYLOVA 1999     Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St   Petersburg   08/10/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,   article   20.2 § 5 of CAO detention for 5 days and fine of RUB   10,000 St   Petersburg City Court 25/10/2017 (both decisions on the same day) Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings decisions on 25/10/2017, St Petersburg City Court, Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO and Art.   20.2 § 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 08/10/2017 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence (arrested at 10.20 p.m. and detained till the court hearing on 09/10/2017); raised on appeal;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings   5,000   24932/18 15/05/2018 Margarita Yuryevna ZAYTSEVA 1970 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Tambov   29/10/2017             article 20.2 § 2 of CAO arrest for 5   days Tambov Regional Court 15/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   26002/18 18/05/2018 (3   applicants) Mikhail Mikhaylovich SEMENOV 1969   Artur Magsumovich ABASHEV 1986   Georgiy Olegovich USPENSKIY 1999   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi 1 applicant: Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Kirov   07/10/2017   2 applicant: Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Kirov   07/10/2017   3 applicant: Meeting "Voters Strike"   Kirov   28/01/2018   1 applicant: Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Kirov 30/03/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO               article 20.2 § 2 of CAO               article 20.2 § 2 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention of five days               detention of five days               fine of RUB   20,000             the fine was lifted on appeal Kirov Regional Court 24/11/2017           Kirov Regional Court 27/02/2018           Kirov Regional Court 06/03/2018         Kirov Regional Court 23/08/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - the first applicant complained of the absence of a prosecuting party in the admin. proceedings in 2022 5,000, to each of the applicants   35361/18 16/07/2018 Aleksandr Sergeyevich VESELOV 1984     Russian March   Moscow   04/11/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 14/03/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 04/11/2017 - Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO; raised in the course of administrative proceedings 4,000   40027/18 11/08/2018 Yuliya Aleksandrovna FEDOSEYEVA 1978     Spontaneous meeting against local waste site     Klin, Moscow Region   13/10/2017 Article   20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow Regional Court 15/02/2018   3,500   41676/18 14/08/2018 Dmitriy Vasilyevich DUBROVIN 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius "Voters’ Strike"   Volgograd   28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 21/02/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded - arrest and detention on 28/01/2018 - 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; 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 4,000   42411/18 24/08/2018 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich TEPLYAKOV 1987     Anti-corruption manifestation   Moscow   04/11/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 28/02/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   42842/18 22/08/2018 Artem Yevgenyevich YEVDOKIMOV 1991 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Distribution of political leaflets   Cherepovets   04/11/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Vologda Regional Court 27/02/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   47334/18 20/09/2018 Tatyana Sergeyevna SERGEYEVA 1972 Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Manifestation of the foreign currency mortgage borrowers in front of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation   Moscow   28/11/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 20/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   29407/19 20/05/2019 Mikhail Igorevich SHALASHNYY 1998     "Endless protest" activists’ meeting   Moscow   10/09/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/11/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   35192/19 16/06/2019 Yuriy Sergeyevich KURLYKOV 1999 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Manifestation against the pension reform   Vladivostok 15/09/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 17/12/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   38762/19 07/07/2019 Aydar Albertovich ISLAMOV 1996 Tomilov Nikita Sergeyevich BERLIN Protest against construction of an orthodox church in a park   Yekaterinburg   14/05/2019 article 20.1 § 2 of CAO 5 days’ arrest Sverdlovsk Regional Court 18/05/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 14/05/2019 - 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;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   45161/19 17/08/2019 Aleksandr Alekseyevich ABRAMOV 1997     Manifestation against the pension reform   Penza   09/08/2018 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Penza Regional Court 14/03/2019   3,500   54061/19 27/09/2019 Valeriy Aleksandrovich SHPYAKIN 1994     Manifestation against the construction of the landfill at Sheis   Arkhangelsk   07/04/2019     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 23/07/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   57851/19 18/10/2019 Aleksey Aleksandrovich CHISLOV 1987 Zadorkin Anton Vyacheslavovich Yekarerinburg Manifestation against construction of an orthodox church   Oktyabrskaya Square 2, Yekaterinburg   16/05/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 28/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest on 16/05/2019 - 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);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   4332/20 28/12/2019 Yan Patvakanovich YEGIAZARYAN 1977 Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich Yekaterinburg Manifestation against the regional authorities   Yekaterinburg   07/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 11/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   4445/20 28/12/2019 Galina Vasilyevna KOROLEVA 1952 Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich Yekaterinburg Manifestation against the regional authorities   Yekaterinburg   07/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 02/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   9115/20 24/01/2020 Igor Vladimirovich SAFONOV 1991 Timakova Kristina Igorevna Moscow Protest against demolition of the "Solovey" cinema   Moscow 23/11/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   100,000 Moscow City Court 24/07/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   1651/21 05/12/2020 Sofya Vladimirovna DURNOVA 2001 Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow Dopuskai Manifestation for free elections   Moscow   03/08/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 10/06/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 - 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 4,000   10270/21 18/01/2021 Tatyana Valeryevna NAMAZBAYEVA 1989 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Manifestation in support of Furgal   Vladivostok   25/07/2020   Manifestation in support of Furgal   Vladivostok   01/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 05/10/2020       Primorye Regional Court 13/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 01/08/2020 and on 15/08/2020 - 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;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   10419/21 18/01/2021 Larisa Vasilyeva ALEKSEYEVA 1946 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Manifestation in support of Furgal   Vladivostok, Svetlanskaya street   01/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 16/11/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative proceedings which ended on 02/11/2020 and 16/11/2020 respectively;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention at a police station on 15/08/2020 - 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; raised on appeal;   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - solo picket against unfair elections on 15/08/2020 in Vladivostok, the applicant convicted under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB   10,000. Upheld on appeal – by the Primorye Regional Court, 02/11/2020. 4,000   20304/21 14/03/2021 Valentina Anatolyevna DYUMINA 1989 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Manifestation in support of S.   Furgal   Krasnoyarsk   01/08/2020   Manifestation in support of S.   Furgal   Krasnoyarsk   08/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000             fine of RUB   20,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 29/10/2020         Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 24/09/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 08/08/2020 - 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 4,000   20783/21 22/03/2021 Andrey Yuryevich MYAKOTIN 1974 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Manifestation in support of S.   Furgal   Vladivostok   18/07/2020   Manifestation in support of S.   Furgal   Vladivostok   25/07/2020   Manifestation in support of S.   Furgal   Vladivostok   08/08/2020   Manifestation in support of Mr. Navalnyy   Vladivostok   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 20 hours of compulsory work           20 hours of compulsory work           20 hours of compulsory work           40 hours of compulsory work Primorye Regional Court 26/10/2020         Primorye Regional Court 02/11/2020         Primorye Regional Court 27/10/2020         Primorye Regional Court 13/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - Arrest and detention at the police station on 15/08/2020 and 31/01/2021 - 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. The complaint was raised on appeal in the course of the administrative proceedings.   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - administrative proceedings relating to the applicant’s participation in the manifestation on 31/01/2021 5,000   21312/21 02/04/2021 Aleksey Nikolayevich SHUVATOV 1992 Sidelnikova Polina Aleksandrovna Vladivostok Manifestation in support of protests in Khabarovsk   Vladivostok   19/07/2020   Manifestation in support of protests in Khabarovsk   Vladivostok   25/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000             fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 09/11/2020         Primorye Regional Court 09/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 22/08/2020 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence 4,000   21509/21 22/03/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich BARICH 1993     Manifestation in support of protests in Khabarovsk   St   Petersburg   01/08/2020   Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy ("Otpuskay")   St   Petersburg   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 7 days’ detention             15 days’ detention St   Petersburg City Court 24/09/2020           St   Petersburg City Court 04/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and overnight detention on 31/01-02/02/2021 - (1) 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; (2) Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - concerning both public events and respective proceedings;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate execution of administrative detention (in respect of the event of 23/01/2021) 6,000   23147/21 09/04/2021 Yevgeniy Olegovich RUDENKO 1996 Sidelnikova Polina Aleksandrovna Vladivostok Manifestation in support of S.   Furgal   Vladivostok   18/07/2020   Manifestation in support of S.   Furgal   Vladivostok   19/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000             fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 24/11/2020         Primorye Regional Court 24/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - on 26/08/2020 the applicant was arrested at his office in relation to his participation in two manifestations, more than one month after the events in question - 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; raised in the domestic proceedings   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative   offence proceedings 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.