CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2097/22 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 March 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sokolov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 March 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 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); Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. In view of the findings 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 28 March 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative/ criminal charges 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]     2097/22 14/12/2021 Pavel Valeryevich SOKOLOV 1996   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Krasnoyarsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 17/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     2108/22 13/12/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich SHIRYAYEV 1994 Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 16/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,     4,000     2172/22 10/12/2021 Artem Vitalyevich ANKUDIMOV 1994 Olimpiada Valentinovna Usanova Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 10/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     2212/22 09/12/2021 Irina Nikolayevna SOKOVA 1999 Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 10/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 21/04/2021 until 22/04/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     2545/22 20/12/2021 Andrey Yuryevich ILLARIONOV 1971 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 01/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000     2581/22 28/12/2021 Yegor Anatolyevich FILIMONOV 1985   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000     2612/22 09/12/2021 Yekaterina Dmitriyevna MARKOVA 2002 Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 10/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     2861/22 09/12/2021 Vadim Yevgenyevich SEROV 1986   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Volgograd   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Volgograd Regional Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report,     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     2871/22 09/12/2021 Filipp Nikolayevich KOZLOV 1984   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   2935/22 21/12/2021 Nikolay Gennadyevich BAKHALKHANOV 1995 Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Krasnoyarsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 24/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     4,000   2995/22 27/12/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KUZIKOV 1973 Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Perm   31/01/2021       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 05/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   3014/22 27/12/2021 Svetlana Ruslanovna SHILO 1969 Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention of 3 days Moscow City Court 05/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   3139/22 02/12/2021 Danila Andreyevich BARYSHNIKOV 1988   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Ufa   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 02/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     4,000   3183/22 11/12/2021 Lyubov Nikolayevna BORMOTOVA 1983 Sofya Zurabovna Sharangiya Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 03/06/2021 (final judgment served on the applicant on 11/06/2021) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   3236/22 16/12/2021 Yegor Igorevich TORGOV 1998 Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 16/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   3312/22 15/12/2021 Anatoliy Nikolayevich MIGUNOV 1989 Andrey Olegovich Valenkov Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 16/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     4,000   13158/22 02/02/2022 Nikita Vyacheslavovich GULYAYEV 2001 Darya Dmitriyevna Aksenova Kolomna Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 03/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     3,500   15890/22 22/03/2022 Ilya Sergeyevich FESHCHENKO 1994 Darya Dmitriyevna Aksenova Kolomna Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 11/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     4,000   22650/22 17/04/2022 Vasiliy Grigoryevich CHERKASOV 2000     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   21/04/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 21/10/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,     3,500   23362/22 20/04/2022 Konstantin Sergeyevich SOKOLOV 1995     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 17/01/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     4,000   23582/22 15/04/2022 Igor Dmitriyevich RODIONOV 1991     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 25/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     4,000   23593/22 14/04/2022 Karina Ashotovna TAMRAZYAN 2001 Darya Dmitriyevna Aksyenova Kolomna Protest against constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 15/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 15/07/2020 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     4,000   25470/22 26/04/2022 Pavel Nikolayevich VIRGUSH 1993 Nataliya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Novosibirsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 28/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   31286/22 18/05/2022 Petr Mikhaylovich SINITSYN 1985 Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg Anti-war protest   Yekaterinburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention of 9 days Sverdlovsk Regional Court 03/03/2022 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   31289/22 18/05/2022 Olga Gennadyevna GREBENKINA 1995 Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Yekaterinburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 10/02/2022 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.