CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 mars 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 } .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 } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; 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 } .sE44FE089 { height:74.35pt } .sAA110D87 { height:131.35pt } .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 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF LUTSEVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 25187/15 and 35 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 March 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lutsevich and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 February 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 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 well-established case-law (see 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); 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 as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence; and 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). remaining complaints 14.     Some applicants also raised additional complaints under Articles   5 and 6 of the Convention. 15.     In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-13 above, 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. 16.     The Court has further examined the applicants’ additional complaints (applications nos. 57562/21, 57565/21, 58164/21 and 13540/22) under Article 5 of the Convention 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 the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     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 the 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 remaining complaints under Article   5 of the Convention (applications nos.   57562/21, 57565/21, 58164/21 and 13540/22) inadmissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses; 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 the appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 March 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   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 / criminal offence 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]     25187/15 12/05/2015 Sergey Vladimirovich LUTSEVICH 1976     Demonstration in support of the media channel "Dozhd"   Moscow   08/02/2014 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 12/11/2014 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     19779/20 23/03/2020 Zinaida Aleksandrovna GILYAZOVA 1989 Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Moscow Anti-war manifestation   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 07/09/2022 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 detention - arrest and detention on 10/08/2019 from 5.40 p.m. to 1 a.m. on 11/08/2019- Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art.   27.5(1)-(4) CAO); arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art.   27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (both complaints raised on appeal)   4,000     13723/21 10/02/2021 Ruslan Mansurovich ZINATULLIN 1978     Participation in the Municipal Russian Forum organised by Open Russia public association   Moscow   13/03/2021 article 20.33 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan 01/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The applicant was arrest on 03/06/2020 in connection with the solo picket carried out on 15/05/2020 - 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 (the complaint raised on appeal in 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 - in relation to administrative proceedings under Article 20.2 of CAO which ended on 16/09/2020,   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - the authorities’ refusal to approve a manifestation in support of victims of political repressions on 02/11/2019 in Kazan. On 18/10/2019 the applicant notified the authorities of his wish to hold that event, however the authorities proposed to change the location because another event had already been planned there. The final decision was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 07/04/2021, complaint lodged on 06/10/2021.   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Kazan, Military Commissariat, 15/05/2020, Solo Picket against mandatory military service (conscription); article   20.2 §   1 of CAO; penalty: 30 hours’ community service; final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 16/09/2020. 4,000     16050/21 05/03/2021 Yevgeniy Vadimovich DILMAN 2001 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of S. Furgal   Komsomolsk-on-Amur   29/07/2020 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 07/12/2020   3,500     21993/21 07/04/2021 Yevgeniy Konstantinovich KOSTOMAROV 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy ("Otpuskai")   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention of 12   days Moscow City Court 09/02/2021 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 detention - arrest and detention on 02 ‑ 03/02/2021 - 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,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 03/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     29794/21 08/05/2021 Viola Nikolayevna TITOVA 1983     Manifestation in support of S. Furgal   Krasnoyarsk   15/08/2020 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 12/11/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     30013/21 08/05/2021 Vladimir Andreyevich DUBOVSKIY 1991 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Manifestation in support of S. Furgal   Krasnoyarsk   01/08/2020 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 12/11/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     30082/21 11/05/2021 Mikhail Mikhaylovich MOROZOV 1984 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 14   days Moscow City Court 12/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and overnight detention from 3 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021 - 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     31703/21 07/06/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SIBIKIN 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow, Matrosskaya Tishina   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 26/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 from 4.40 p.m. to 11.40 p.m. - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable on the spot to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 §   1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO (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   31824/21 16/06/2021 Andrey Dmitriyevich GARIFULLIN 1987 Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Moscow City Court 12/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 11.45 a.m. to 10.45 p.m. on 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 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 proceeding 4,000   31827/21 16/06/2021 Anton Dmitriyevich GONCHARUK 1996 Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative arrest of 8 days St Petersburg City Court 09/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 1.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 6 p.m. on 01/02/2021 - 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; 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,   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 the account of lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO         5,000   31854/21 16/06/2021 Yegor Timofeyevich NECHAYEV 2001 Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO administrative arrest of 15   days Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 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 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,   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 the account of lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   36365/21 30/06/2021 Arseniy Mikhaylovich CHEKANOV 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 14/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 4.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 4.30 a.m. on 01/02/2021 - 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) 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   40552/21 30/07/2021 Olga Valentinovna LEVINA 1956 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Tambov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   3 of CAO administrative detention of 15   days Tambov Regional Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 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,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   45532/21 12/08/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich CHVANOV 1976 Shagiyeva Regina Ilgizovna Leninigorsk Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Naberezhnye Chelny   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 - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 and 30/01/2021 - 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, raised on appeal   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in administrative proceedings under Article 20.2 §   2 of CAO was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - the applicant posted information on Internet concerning the rally to support A. Navalnyy on 31/01/2021, Article 20.2 §   2 of CAO, detention for 9 days, final decision 10/03/2021 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic         5,000   51383/21 30/09/2021 Olga Anatolyevna SHKOLINA 1977 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Arkhangelsk   16/01/2021 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   11,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 02/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   53264/21 01/10/2021 Olga Sergeyevna YELSAKOVA 1978 Vladyka Oksana Anatolyevna Arkhangelsk Manifestation in support of A.   Navalny   Arkhangelsk   16/01/2021 article 20.2 §   2 of CAO 45 hours of community service Arkhangelsk Regional Court 01/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   57562/21 07/11/2021 Sharafdzhon Mukimdzhonovich SOBIROV 1984 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of I.   Amon   Moscow   02/04/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 02/04/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (raised in 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 4,000   57565/21 07/11/2021 Murodali Makhmadnaimovich SALIMOV 1999 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of I.   Amon   Moscow   02/04/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021 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 detention - Arrest and detention on 02/04/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings) 4,000   58164/21 05/11/2021 Mariya Alekseyevna SMIRNOVA 1988 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Picket in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   19/01/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 25/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – Arrest and detention 19/01/2021 - 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 (raised on appeal in 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 fine of RUB   10,000, 25/08/2021, Moscow City Court 4,000   1435/22 21/12/2021 Aleksandr Andreyevich YARKIN 2002 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk March of Russian nationalists   Moscow   04/11/2020 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 27/09/2021 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 detention – Arrest and detention on 04/11/2020 - 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   7143/22 31/01/2022 Svyatoslav Andreyevich LEKONTSEV 2002 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Perm   21/04/2021           article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 25/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   8108/22 18/01/2022 Anastasiya Olegovna GOMENYUK 1986 Chashchilova Mariya Valeryevna Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 27/10/2021 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 detention - Arrest and detention from 11.50 a.m. to midnight on 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO); both complaints were raised on appeal 4,000   8587/22 14/01/2022 Sergey Aleksandrovich SMIRNOV 2000 Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Nizhny Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court 15/07/2021 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 detention – Arrest and detention on from 12.30   p.m. to 6.30 p.m. on 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO); both complaints were raised on appeal. 4,000   8599/22 14/01/2022 Vyacheslav Vyacheslavovich ISAKOV 1974 Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Nizhny Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court 15/07/2021 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 detention – Arrest and detention from 12.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO); both complaints were raised on appeal 4,000   12376/22 24/02/2022 Manzar Shokhimboyevich YUSUPOV 1985 Prosvirkina Kseniya Dmitriyevna Moscow Demonstration in support of I.   Amon   Moscow   02/04/2021   article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 27/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   12869/22 17/02/2022 Andrey Valeryevich KRAVTSOV 1984 Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich Voronezh Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Voronezh   21/04/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 17/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   13120/22 17/02/2022 Igor Aleksandrovich GREKOV 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Voronezh   21/04/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 23/08/2021 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 detention - Arrest and detention on 21/04/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; raised on appeal       4,000   13124/22 17/02/2022 Aleksey Sergeyevich FILIPPOV 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Ivanovo   21/04/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Ivanovo Regional Court 23/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceeding   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – Arrest and detention on 21/04/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; raised on appeal 4,000   13126/22 17/02/2022 Lev Robertovich PUSHNOV 1963 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 23/09/2021 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 detention – Arrest and detention on 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; raised on appeal 4,000   13540/22 31/01/2022 Andrey Denisovich BOKAREV 1997 Bannikov Ruslan Yuryevich Voronezh Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Voronezh   21/04/2021 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 28/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 21/04/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; 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   19137/22 26/03/2022 Tazret Sergeyevich TEDEYEV 1991     Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 27/09/2021 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 detention - arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 - 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; raised on appeal 4,000   28513/22 13/05/2022 Nadezhda Leonidovna ZAGORDAN 1984 Tregubova Yuliya Mikhaylovna Balashikha Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021   article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 17/11/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   29348/22 14/05/2022 Stepan Vladimirovich SAMOYLENKO 1993 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow, Manezh Square and Tverskaya Street   21/04/2021     article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 15/11/2021 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 detention - arrest and detention on 22/05/2021 - 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; raised on appeal 4,000   30755/22 06/03/2022 Aleksandr Nikolayevich KOLOSOV 1981 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow "Political performance" in support of "The Other Russia" political party of E. Limonov   St Petersburg   29/07/2021 article 20.2 §   2 of CAO administrative detention of 3   days St Petersburg City Court 07/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – Arrest and detention on 29/07/2021 - 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; 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;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 30/07/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   5,000   5090/23 13/01/2023 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich SHAPOSHNIKOV 2003   Demonstration in memory of Boris Nemtsov   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 13/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – Arrest and detention from 5.45   p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 2.55 a.m. on 28/02/2022 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO); 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.