CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 mai 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 } .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 } .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 PETROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2417/22 and 33 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 May 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Petrov 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 11 April 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.     The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocol, 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; 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 Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§   64-91, 4   July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences, in order to identify, locate and arrest the applicant. 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 14 May 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]     2417/22 06/12/2021 Daniil Dmitriyevich PETROV 2000 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally in support of Navalnyy   Cheboksary   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 13/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention 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: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 13/07/2021 4,000     2451/22 06/12/2021 Yevgeniy Borisovich LUKIYANOV 1994 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally in support of Navalnyy   Cheboksary   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 14/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention 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: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 14/07/2021 4,000     2473/22 06/12/2021 Tamara Ivanovna ROMANOVA 1954 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally in support of Navalnyy   Cheboksary   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 21/09/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 21/09/2021 3,500     2485/22 06/12/2021 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KOROBKOV 1990 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally in support of Navalnyy   Cheboksary   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 21/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 15/07/2021 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: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 21/09/2021 4,000     3212/22 30/12/2021 Yelena Olegovna BESPALOVA 1998 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of Navalnyy   Perm   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 14/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention 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: Perm Regional Court, 14/07/2021 4,000     3228/22 30/12/2021 Oksana Vladimirovna BYCHENKOVA 1974 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of Navalnyy   Vladimir   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Vladimir Regional Court 29/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention 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: Vladimir Regional Court, 29/07/2021 4,000     4456/22 10/01/2022 Aleksey Veniaminovich SHILYAYEV 1975 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of Navalnyy   Arkhangelsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   11,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 12/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 12/08/2021 3,500     4478/22 10/01/2022 Lidiya Kirsanovna SOROKINA 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 21/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention 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, 21/10/2021 4,000     4964/22 10/01/2022 Vadim Rustamovich SHAGIYEV 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of Navalnyy   Ufa   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 18/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1.30 p.m. to 5.41 p.m. 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: Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic, 18/10/2021 4,000   5049/22 25/12/2021 Mikhail Mikhaylovich SEMUSHEV 1996 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally in support of Navalnyy   Sochi   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   19,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 05/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4 p.m. to 10.50 p.m. 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: Krasnodar Regional Court, 05/07/2021 4,000   5355/22 29/12/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich SEMENOV 1989 Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Rally for fair elections   Moscow   22/09/2021 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 25 days Moscow City Court 28/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2 p.m. on 22/09/2021 to 23/09/2021 until the court hearing 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, 28/09/2021 4,000   5357/22 29/12/2021 Timofey Dmitriyevich FILIN 2000 Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Rally for fair elections   Moscow   22/09/2021 article 20.1 § 2 detention for 14 days Moscow City Court 28/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12.35   p.m. on 22/09/2021 to 23/09/2021 until the court hearing 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, 28/09/2021 4,000   5359/22 29/12/2021 Mariya Dmitriyevna PASTUSHKOVA 1998 Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Rally for fair elections   Moscow   22/09/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 28/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2 p.m. on 22/09/2021 to 23/09/2021 until the court hearing 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, 28/09/2021 5,000   5632/22 24/12/2021 Olga Yevgenyevna MOROZOVA 1965 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Navalnyy   Saratov   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Saratov Regional Court 06/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 17/05/2021 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: Saratov Regional Court, 06/07/2021 4,000   7254/22 14/01/2022 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich YLYANOV 1985 Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna Nizhniy Novgorod Rally in support of Navalnyy   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 19/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12.15   p.m. to 10 p.m. 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: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 19/07/2021 4,000   7323/22 27/01/2022 Polina Sergeyevna BARINOVA 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 03/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. 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, 03/08/2021 4,000   7325/22 27/01/2022 Roman Andreyevich RYBIN 2001 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 09/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3.13   p.m. to 8.54 p.m. 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, 09/08/2021 4,000   7355/22 19/01/2022 Rodion Olegovich TROYANOVSKIY 2002 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally in support of Navalnyy   Perm   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 22/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4 p.m. to 8   p.m. on 22/04/2021 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: Perm Regional Court, 22/07/2021 4,000   11074/22 10/02/2022 Aleksey Vladimirovich AFANASYEV 1978 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 05/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention 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, 05/10/2021 4,000   11098/22 10/02/2022 Dmitriy Sergeyevich MAGANOV 1993 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 25/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention 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, 25/10/2021 4,000   15308/22 10/03/2022 Vladimir Sergeyevich SEVERENKO 1989 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 23/09/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 23/09/2021 3,500   23596/22 15/04/2022 Yevgeniya Mikhaylovna DEVYATILOVA 1994 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Rally in support of Navalnyy   Belgorod   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Belgorod Regional Court 18/10/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Belgorod Regional Court, 18/10/2021,   Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - Use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and her subsequent conviction (raised on appeal) 5,000   24073/22 09/02/2022 Konstantin Yevgenyevich CHEPROV 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   04/11/2020 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 17/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.07 p.m. to 9 p.m. on 04/11/2020 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, 17/08/2021 4,000   24075/22 09/02/2022 Sergey Vasilyevich SPIRIDONOV 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Navalnyy   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 11/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12 p.m. to 9.06 p.m. 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: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 11/08/2021 4,000   24787/22 06/08/2021 Pavel Aleksandrovich OVSYANNIKOV 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 13 days Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 00.05 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 03/02/2021 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, 08/02/2021,   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   24997/22 18/04/2022 Aleksandra Aleksandrovna NIKIFOROVA 1956 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 15/12/2021 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, 15/12/2021,   Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - Use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and her subsequent conviction (raised on appeal)   5,000   25431/22 22/04/2022 Andrey gennadyevich SELEZNEV 1972 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Meeting with MPs   Moscow   26/06/2021   Meeting with MPs   Moscow   20/09/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 29/11/2021         Moscow District Court 21/12/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 5 p.m. to 10   p.m. on 26/06/2021 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 both sets of administrative-offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 29/11/2021 and 21/12/2021 4,000   25703/22 14/05/2022 Aleksandr Sergeyevich AGADZHANYAN 1958 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Rally in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   21/04/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 15/11/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 9.45   p.m. on 26/04/2021 to 3 p.m. on 27/04/2021 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, 15/11/2021                   4,000   27985/22 13/05/2022 Mikhail Alekseyevich YEFREMOV 2003 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Event in support of political prisoners and against the Federal Penal Authority abusive practices   Perm   07/11/2021 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 40 hours of community work Perm Regional Court 21/12/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.30   p.m. on 07/11/2021 to 7.55 p.m. on 08/11/2021 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: Perm Regional Court, 21/12/2021 4,000   28004/22 13/05/2022 Anastasiya Valeryevna MARINTSEVA 2000 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Political protest   Perm   31/07/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 30/11/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Perm Regional Court, 30/11/2021 3,500   29131/22 20/05/2022 Aleksandr Vasilyevich OSIPOV 1980 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 15 days Moscow City Court 05/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.35   p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 3 p.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, 05/03/2022,   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   43156/22 17/08/2022 Albina Khalilevna MIRGASIMOVA 1992 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 19/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 8.25   p.m. on 27/02/2022 to 12 p.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, 19/04/2022 4,000   46060/22 16/09/2022 Yelena Olegovna ZYRYANOVA 1988 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Anti-war protest   Krasnoyarsk   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 18/05/2022 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: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18/05/2022 4,000   46109/22 17/09/2022 Anton Sergeyevich NAZAROV 1997 Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich Samara Anti-war protest   Samara   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 19/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3 p.m. to 8.50 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: Samara Regional Court, 19/05/2022 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.