CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 21 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF STRELETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 31649/22 and 33 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 21 March 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Strelets and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 22 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 participants in the protest on 6 March 2022 in Moscow against the Russian military attack on Ukraine. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2   others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17   January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as 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.     The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 13 .     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4   others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo demonstrations; and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, as 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 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with 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 applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 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 21 March 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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 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 and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     31649/22 21/05/2022 Artem Igorevich STRELETS 1988 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 16/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 4 p.m. on 07/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     45366/22 06/09/2022 Boris Vladimirovich FESENKO   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.25 p.m. until 9.55 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     47561/22 16/09/2022 Anastasiya Dmitriyevna ILYINA 2003 Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 23/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. on 06/03/2022 4,000     48596/22 14/09/2022 Sofya Gyrmayevna KASSAYE 1979 Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna Moscow article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 5 days Moscow City Court 07/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.15 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 2 p.m. on 07/03/2022, when she was taken to the court;   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 07/03/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     50068/22 06/10/2022 Andrey Vladimirovich RUMYANTSEV 2001 Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 07/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.44 p.m. until 9.18 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     53386/22 02/11/2022 Olga Aleksandrovna BRAYT 1995 Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. until 10.40 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     53842/22 10/11/2022 Dmitriy Andreyevich UVAROV 1995     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 11/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.40 p.m. until 6.58 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     54959/22 29/10/2022 Anastasiya Gennadyevna SUSLINA 1993 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 11/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.12 p.m. until 10 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000     55424/22 11/11/2022 Gleb Vadimovich GULDYASHEV 1990     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.55 p.m. until 10 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   55968/22 20/11/2022 Petr Yuryevich ALEYNIKOV 1981     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 18,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.15 p.m. until 10.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   57573/22 29/11/2022 Yuliya Valeryevna MALININA 1999 Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.02 p.m. until 8.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   77/23 21/11/2022 Alina Sergeyevna YAKIMUK 1991 Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 23/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 2.15 a.m. on 07/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   788/23 11/11/2022 Yekaterina Vladimirovna KHRUSTALEVA 1998     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.55 p.m. until 8.05 p.m. on 06/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   804/23 09/12/2022 Yekaterina Viktorovna MUKHARINOVA 1997     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 09/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   895/23 30/11/2022 Anna Vyacheslavovna REKUS 1998 Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 25/07/2022 (the decision was served on the applicant a week later) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.20 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   918/23 27/11/2022 Kseniya Sergeyevna KOZARENKO 2001 Malinina Yuliya Valeryevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 27/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.34 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   937/23 03/12/2022 Aleksandr Anatolyevich BADYIN 1982     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 03/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12.45 a.m. on 07/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   1201/23 25/11/2022 Nikita Anatolyevich OKHOTNIKOV 1994     article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 5   days Moscow City Court 25/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 3.45 p.m. on 07/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   1250/23 09/12/2022 Aleksandra Valeryevna KAMYGINA 1996 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 11/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. until 11 p.m. on 06/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   1445/23 09/12/2022 Sofiya Dmitriyevna GOROVAYA 1992     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 09/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.40 p.m. until 10.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     4,000   1571/23 30/11/2022 Ivan Vsevolodovich NAZIMKIN 2000     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 05/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.50 p.m. until 8.05 p.m. on 06/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   1681/23 17/12/2022 Georgiy Teymurazovich LILUASHVILI 1997     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 25/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12.30 a.m. on 07/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   1771/23 10/12/2022 Sergey Ivanovich DOBRENKIY 1975     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 11/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000   2031/23 05/12/2022 Yakov Olegovich KULCHENKO 2002     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 05/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.50 p.m. until 10 p.m. on 06/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   2115/23 11/11/2022 Nikolay Nikolayevich TROSHIN 1985 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.15 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12.40 a.m. on 07/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   2125/23 25/11/2022 Vera Vyacheslavovna MIZINA 1998 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 5   days Moscow City Court 25/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.53 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 6.35 p.m. on 07/03/2022;   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 07/03/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   2369/23 04/01/2023 Tatyana Nikolayevna SHARANKOVA 1974 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 07/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12   a.m. on 07/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   2431/23 04/01/2023 Mariya Grigoryevna GOROBETS 1993 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 09/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.45 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   2435/23 04/01/2023 Mariya Vladimirovna LOPUKHOVA 1993 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 09/09/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.45 p.m. until 8.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   2601/23 14/12/2022 Nikolay Vladimirovich MINKO 1986     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 17/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12.30 a.m. on 07/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   2654/23 08/12/2022 Miroslava Vladimirovna IVANOVA 1973     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 05/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. until 8.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   3656/23 05/12/2022 Gleb Valentinovich ALEKSANDROV 1993     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 05/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.10 p.m. until 9.40 p.m. on 06/03/2022;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   3858/23 03/01/2023 Denis Aleksandrovich ZELENTSOV 1997     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 05/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 11.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022; Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.         4,000   21753/23 27/12/2022 Kristina Petrovna MARKUS 1984     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.35 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 and from 7 p.m. on 05/04/2022 until 4.30   p.m. on 06/04/2022;   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - the applicant was fined RUB   15,000 for staging a solo demonstration with the Ukrainian flag in Red Square in Moscow on 05/04/2022 (convicted under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for breaching rules on public events by staging her solo demonstration in a place adjacent to the residence of the President of Russia, final decision was taken by the Moscow City Court on 23/03/2023). 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.