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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF BORISOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 53913/15 and 24 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 Borisova 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 organisers or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2   others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17   January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10 .     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     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); Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, §§ 48-51, 13 December 2016, relating to the unfairness of the proceedings under the CAO due to the inability to present evidence supporting the assembly participant’s version of events; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos.   60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; mutatis mutandis , Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary , nos. 26005/08 and 26160/08, §§ 36-42, 12 June 2012, concerning restrictions on acts constituting a form of political expression; 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; and 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. 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 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 and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     53913/15 19/10/2015 Yelena Gennadyevna BORISOVA 1985 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Protest in defence of citizen’s rights   Moscow   01/02/2015 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 12/05/2015 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500     73381/17 05/10/2017 Anastasiya Ilyinichna VASILYEVA 1996 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Meeting with voters   Cheboksary   29/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 16/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.20 p.m. on 05/02/2021 until 8.32 a.m. on 06/02/2021;     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;     Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant together with three other persons was fined RUB 20,000 under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for having publicly displayed a banner "You will not kill everyone, you will not imprison everyone" accompanied by lighting flares at the bridge in Cheboksary on 25/02/2017 (final decision taken on 13/04/2017 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic).   4,000     84539/17 14/12/2017 Denis Viktorovich UVAROV 1987 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption rally   St   Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO detention for 10 days;     fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 16/06/2017 (both sets 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;     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in terms of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     84562/17 14/12/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KOVALENKOV 1986 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO detention for 10   days;     fine of RUB   10,000 St   Petersburg City Court 20/06/2017;   St   Petersburg City Court 11/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.25 p.m. on 12/06/2017 until afternoon on 13/06/2017, when the applicant was taken to the court;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in terms of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 §   1 of the CAO was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     84567/17 14/12/2017 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BARANOV 1983 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption rally   Moscow   12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 15/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 6.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017 until 10 a.m. on 13/06/2017;     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     1310/18 14/12/2017 Mark Aleksandrovich ABRAMOV   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Anti-corruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000;     detention for 5 days St Petersburg City Court 29/06/2017;   St Petersburg City Court 16/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017 until 6.30 p.m. on 13/06/2017;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings;     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO). 5,000     3610/18 23/12/2017 Olesya Valeryevna KHRISTOSENKO 1997 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Anti-corruption rally   Sochi   12/06/2017   Rally to support Navalnyy   Sochi   07/10/2017       article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 7 days           detention for 8 days Krasnodar Regional Court 12/07/2017       Krasnodar Regional Court 02/11/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     3617/18 23/12/2017 Valeriy Paatayevich TUAYEV 1993 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Anti-corruption rally   Sochi   12/06/2017   Opposition protest   Sochi   26/03/2018 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 10 days           detention for 20 days Krasnodar Regional Court 23/06/2017       Krasnodar Regional Court 19/04/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings;     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.     5,000     3622/18 23/12/2017 Sergey Nikolayevich LOMAN 1971 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Anti-corruption rally   Sochi   12/06/2017 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Krasnodar Regional Court 23/06/2017 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   4821/18 09/12/2017 Roman Viktorovich RUBANOV 1980 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anti-corruption rally   Moscow   12/06/2017       article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 19/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000   5246/18 03/01/2018 Anna Aleksandrovna IVANOVA 1991 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000;   detention for 7 days St Petersburg City Court 06/07/2017 (both sets of proceedings) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.25 p.m. on 12/06/2017 until 3 p.m. on 13/06/2017;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of 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   5280/18 08/01/2018 Aleksey Gennadyevich BUDKIN 1984 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000;     detention for 7 days St Petersburg City Court 27/07/2017 (both sets of proceedings Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.53 p.m. on 12/06/2017 until afternoon on 14/06/2017;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of 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   24905/18 18/05/2018 Nikita Sergeyevich PAVLOV 1991 Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Nizhniy Novgorod   29/09/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 23/11/2017   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   39376/18 09/08/2018   Ilya Sergeyevich DANILOV 1989     Rally to support A.   Navalnyy   Lipetsk   28/01/2018 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 20 days Lipetsk Regional Court 12/02/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings (under Article 20.2 § 8 and Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10   days, final decision 28/01/2021 Lipetsk Regional Court;   Prot.7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in the administrative-offence 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. 5,000   50845/18 10/10/2018 Aleksandr Andreyevich TEREVERKO 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Political rally   Voronezh   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000;   detention for 2 days Voronezh Regional Court 26/06/2018 (both sets of proceedings) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.35 p.m. on 05/05/2018 until 06/05/2018, when the applicant was taken to the court;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of the CAO).   5,000   53841/18 25/10/2018 Maksim Igorevich KOSTAREV 1985 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Political rally   St Petersburg   05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO detention for 10   days;       20 hours of community work St Petersburg City Court 11/05/2018   St Petersburg City Court 10/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.50 p.m. on 05/05/2018 until 9.15 a.m. on 06/05/2018;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings;     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO). 5,000   57432/18 21/11/2018 Mariya Arkadyevna PECHISHCHEVA 1994 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Political rally   St Petersburg   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000;     detention for 3 days St Petersburg City Court 29/05/2018;   St Petersburg City Court 22/05/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.40 p.m. on 05/05/2018 until 07/05/2018, when the applicant was taken to the court;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings;     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO). 5,000   3834/19 29/12/2018 Rostislav Sergeyevich CHULEVSKIY 1995 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Political rally   Krasnodar   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000;   detention for 1 day Krasnodar Regional Court 04/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station from 6.45 p.m. on 05/05/2018 until 10 a.m. on 06/05/2018;   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   4263/19 13/12/2018 Denis Andreyevich SHAKHOV 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Political rally   St Petersburg   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000;     fine of RUB   700 St Petersburg City Court 26/06/2018 (both sets of proceedings) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.55 p.m. on 05/05/2018 until 3.30 a.m. on 06/05/2018;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO). 4,000   5293/19 13/12/2018 Ivan Aleksandrovich MILGUNOV 1999 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Political rally   Voronezh   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000;   detention for 4 days Voronezh Regional Court 25/06/2018 (both sets of proceedings) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.47 p.m. on 05/05/2018 until 06/05/2018, when the applicant was taken to the court;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings;     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO).           5,000   6638/19 21/01/2019 Aleksandr Nikolayevich ZINOV 1983 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Political rally   Kaluga 05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;       article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 500;         fine of RUB 5,000 Kaluga Regional Court 16/08/2018   Kaluga Regional Court 21/08/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.10 p.m. until 5.49 p.m. on 05/05/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   17161/19 11/03/2019 Irina Igorevna SIGOVA 1988 Mikhaylova Kseniya Andreyevna St Petersburg Rally in support of LGBTI community   St Petersburg   04/08/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 St Petersburg City Court 11/09/2018 Art. 6 (1) - unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings - various deficiencies of the administrative offence proceedings (domestic courts declined to consider and review the video recording, which would have demonstrated that the applicant did not participate in the unauthorised rally). 3,500   18240/19 22/03/2019   Aleksey Yuryevich VORSIN 1987 Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna Moscow Rally in support of S.   Furgal   Khabarovsk   25/07/2020 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Khabarovsk Regional Court 27/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.55 p.m. on 15/08/2020 until 17/08/2020, when the applicant was taken to the court;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article   20.2 § 8 (final decision 04/10/2018) and Article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO (final decision 27/10/2020);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - 1) rally to support A. Navalnyy and S. Furgal on 23/01/2021, Article 20.2 §   8 of the CAO, fine of RUB 150,000, final decision on 24/02/2021 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court; 2) protest against retirement age hike on 09/09/2018, Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, detention for 15 days, final decision on 04/10/2018 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court. 7,000   31913/19 29/05/2019 Oleg Aleksandrovich YELANCHIK 1990     Protest against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 06/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article   17.3 § 2 of the CAO (final decision taken by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow on 23/01/2019).   4,000   57166/19 16/10/2019 Isropil Mikailovich NALGIYEV 1990 Agaltsova Marina Vladimirovna Moscow Protest against change of borders between Ingushetia and Chechnya   Magas   25/03/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Supreme Court of the Ingushetia Republic 13/06/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.