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 VASIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 38346/21 and 28 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 Vasin 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. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol. 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 Protocol in the light of its findings in 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); 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; Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and   4   others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken against participants in solo manifestations; and 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 the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 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 Protocol 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 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]     38346/21 02/07/2021 Sergey Yevgenyevich VASIN 1965 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 10   days Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on 21/04/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision Moscow City Court, 28/04/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his sentence – administrative arrest – before the appeal judgment was delivered 4,000     52322/21 01/10/2021 Veronika Konstantinovna SANDER 1992 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kazan   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 07/04/2021   3,500     1601/22 10/12/2021 Rinat Maratovich DAVLETGILDEYEV 1986 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Placing LGBT flag on the FSB building “to celebrate President Putin’s Birthday”   Moscow   07/10/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 17/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 11.10   a.m. to 3.09 p.m. on 29/10/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 17/08/2020 4,000     4505/22 11/12/2021 Petr Sergeyevich MIRONOV 1990 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 11/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4   p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 0.15 a.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 11/06/2021 4,000     4508/22 11/12/2021 Maksim Aleksandrovich VOLKOV 1996 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.05 p.m. for more than 3   hours on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/06/2021 4,000     5701/22 20/01/2022 (4 applicants) Aleksandra Vladimirovna POLIVANOVA 1976   Aleksandr Vladimirovich BOGOMAZ 1976   Ivan Denisovich FINOGEYEV 1996   Sergey Sergeyevich VLASOV 1986   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Party congress meeting   Velikiy Novgorod   22/05/2021 article 20.6.1 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   3,000 (Ms   Polivanova)   fine of RUB   4,000 (Mr   Bogomaz)   fine of RUB   5,000 (Mr   Vlasov)   fine of RUB   3,000 (Mr   Finogeyev) Novgorod Regional Court 20/07/2021   Novgorod Regional Court 20/07/2021   Novgorod Regional Court 30/07/2021   Novgorod Regional Court 05/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – all sets of the proceedings: Final decisions: Novgorod Regional Court, 20/07/2021, 30/07/2021, 05/08/2021   3,500, to each of the applicants     6430/22 30/12/2021 Kirill Alekseyevich GLADKOV 1999 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally “Free Navalnyy”     Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7 p.m. for more than 3 hours on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 05/07/2021 4,000     7975/22 17/01/2022 Nikita Aleksandrovich YESIN 1990 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Protest against road construction   Moscow   19/03/2020 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest on 19/03/2020 and detention from 11.25 p.m. for more than 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/07/2021 4,000     51393/22 01/10/2022 Ilya Andreyevich MINOCHKIN 1997 Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg Anti-war protest   Yekaterinburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 25 hours Sverdlovsk Regional Court 08/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 08/06/2022 4,000   51394/22 01/10/2022 Leonid Vladimirovich LUKINYKH 1987 Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg Anti-war protest   Yekaterinburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 24/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 24/08/2022 4,000   51500/22 24/10/2022 Irina-Lika Petrovna SUKHOVA 1976 Arshinova Valeriya Aleksandrovna Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 27/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/06/2022 4,000   51506/22 21/10/2022 Maksim Vyacheslavovich KHARIN 1999     Anti-war protest   Yekaterinburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 22/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.02 p.m. to 11.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 22/06/2022 4,000   52036/22 21/10/2022 Fail Mazitovich GATIYATULLIN 1987 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 29/06/2022 4,000   52374/22 25/10/2022 Kirill Petrovich SHUMILOV 1994 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   Ulyanovsk   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Ulyanovsk Regional Court 30/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.20 p.m. to 7.40   p.m. on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Ulyanovsk Regional Court, 30/06/2022 4,000   53382/22 31/10/2022 Yuliya Vladimirovna DEMUTSKAYA 2001 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. to 11.45   p.m. on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 13/07/2022 4,000   54426/22 28/10/2022 Aleksandra Mikhaylovna SPIRIDONOVA 1989     Anti-war protest   Moscow   04/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 01/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.30 p.m. to 7.01 p.m. on 04/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/07/2022 4,000   54442/22 07/11/2022 Marina Viktorovna NARYZHNAYA 1984     Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 25/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3.10 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 25/07/2022 4,000   55570/22 12/11/2022 Darya Leonidovna YURISHCHEVA 1986 Arshinova Valeriya Aleksandrovna Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 15/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 15/08/2022 4,000   55630/22 13/11/2022 Aleksey Andreyevich SIDYUKOV 1996     Anti-war protest   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.50 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 3.10 a.m. on 25/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 13/07/2022 4,000   55700/22 21/11/2022 Maksim Sergeyevich SVESHNIKOV 1990     Anti-war protest   Moscow   03/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.10 p.m. to 11.55 p.m. on 03/03/2022 and from 3.20 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 04/06/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 21/07/2022 and 16/08/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - solo picket against the war in Ukraine on 04/06/2022, final decision: by the Moscow City Court, on 16/08/2022; the applicant was fined       4,000   55909/22 12/11/2022 Mark Yuryevich NARUSOV 1998     Anti-war protest   Moscow   28/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 15/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.50 p.m. on 28/02/2022 to 1 a.m. on 01/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 15/07/2022 4,000   55928/22 25/10/2022 Vyacheslav Yevgenyevich POSPEKOV 1990 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest     Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 27/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/06/2022 4,000   55933/22 19/11/2022 Vladislav Konstantinovich STEZHKO 2003     Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 19/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 12 p.m. on 07/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/07/2022 4,000   56005/22 28/11/2022 Andrey Aleksandrovich DEMKIN 1996 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 27/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3.30 p.m. to 9.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal   4,000   56619/22 24/11/2022 Aleksey Yuryevich MUNYOS 2002     Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 25/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3 p.m. to 8   p.m. on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 25/07/2022 4,000   56902/22 19/11/2022 Anna Sergeyevna STEFANOVICH 1991 Pilipenko Anastasiya Vladimirovna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 19/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 6.15 p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 0.50 a.m. on 28/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St   Petersburg City Court, 19/07/2022 4,000   56903/22 19/11/2022 Polina Valeryevna POPOVA 1992 Pilipenko Anastasiya Vladimirovna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 19/07/2022 Art.   5   (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.36 p.m. to 11.30   p.m. on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St   Petersburg City Court, 19/07/2022 4,000   56918/22 17/11/2022 Olga Viktorovna LYUTTSER 2000     Anti-war protest   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 5.40 p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 1.05 a.m. on 28/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/07/2022 4,000   56920/22 17/11/2022 Igor Mikhaylovich MAKARSHIN 1963 Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Moscow Manifestation in memory of B. Nemtsov   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 25/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 5.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 25/07/2022 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.