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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 PARFENOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 45295/21 and 25 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 Parfenov 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. 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; 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; 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 in paragraph 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 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]     45295/21 23/08/2021 Nikolay Pavlovich PARFENOV 1951 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Stavropol   31/01/2021   Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Stavropol   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000           detention for 12 days Stavropol Regional Court 07/04/2021       Stavropol Regional Court 16/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017);   escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - proceedings ended on 07/04/2021 and on 16/06/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant (proceedings ended on 16/06/2021) was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     45494/21 30/08/2021 Nadezhda Viktorovna GRUBENKO 1991 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnoyarsk   31/01/2021   Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnoyarsk   21/04/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           fine of RUB   15,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 20/05/2021       Krasnoyarsk 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 - proceedings ended on 20/05/2021 and 05/08/2021. 3,500     14623/23 25/03/2023 Liliya Azatovna GAYFULLINA 2003     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 25/11/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.27 p.m. until 8.28 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).   4,000     14626/23 21/03/2023 Liliya Viktorovna KALAYEVA 1989     Gathering in memory of Boris Nemtsov   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 21/11/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 10.00   p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 3.30 a.m. on 28/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia , no. 5865/07, §§   63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000     15120/23 29/03/2023 Artur Vladimirovich OGANESOV 1998     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/12/2022 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 his subsequent conviction (raised on appeal). 5,000     16923/23 03/04/2023 Stepan Vladimirovich FARAFONOV 1999 Kuroptev Aleksey Mikhaylovich Balashikha Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 05/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.50   p.m. until 9.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000     17444/23 30/03/2023 Matvey Vladimirovich KOZLOVSKIY 1981     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   02/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 01/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.05   p.m. on 02/03/2022 until 4.00 a.m. on 03/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000     17733/23 13/04/2023 Svetlana Aleksandrovna DOROZHKINA 1975     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 13/12/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.45   p.m. until 8.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art.   27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v.   Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018).       4,000     17877/23 18/04/2023 Maksim Vadimovich KOLESNIKOV 2001 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 25/01/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.40   p.m. until 11.00 p.m. on 24/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019). 4,000   25420/23 01/06/2023 Anton Viktorovich BONDAREV 1986 Filatchev Oleg Vladimirovich Moscow Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 01/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2   July 2019). 4,000   25571/23 02/06/2023 Denis Yevgenyevich DEGTYAREV 1983 Arshinova Valeriya Aleksandrovna Moscow Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 13/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.00   p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 9.00 a.m. on 07/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000   25573/23 09/06/2023 Dmitriy Igorevich LOGINOV 1997     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   26/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 09/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.33   p.m. on 26/02/2022 until 1.00 a.m. on 27/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000   25636/23 29/05/2023 Dmitriy Sergeyevich SHANGIN 1991     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 31/01/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 9.12   p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).               4,000   25638/23 24/05/2023 Olga Sergeyevna MALYKH 1987     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 24/01/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.55   p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 3.25 a.m. on 25/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art.   27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v.   Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, §   21, 28 November 2017). 4,000   25701/23 31/05/2023 Anton Aleksandrovich GNATYUK 1989     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   26/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 30/01/2023 (decision served on the applicant on the following day) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30   p.m. on 26/02/2022 until 12.00 p.m. on 27/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).             4,000   25725/23 19/06/2023 Andrey Yevgenyevich FILATOV 1996 Samorukova Anastasiya Orestovna Moscow Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 27/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30   p.m. until 8.35 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v.   Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, §   21, 28   November 2017). 4,000   25810/23 15/06/2023 Sarang Vladimirovna TSEBEKOVA 1961     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 15/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.00   p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 5.00 a.m. on 07/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000   26029/23 16/06/2023 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ZAYTSEV 1992     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   26/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 16/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30   p.m. on 26/02/2022 until 12.10 a.m. on 27/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000   26243/23 30/05/2023 Vladimir Nikolayevich BULAVKIN 1986     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 30/01/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.45   p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 5.00 a.m. on 07/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000   26245/23 13/06/2023 Aleksandr Sergeyevich NOVOZHILOV 1998     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   13/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 01/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30   p.m. until 9.20 p.m. on 13/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and   Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000   26451/23 30/05/2021 Yelizaveta Alekseyevna LYGINA 1998 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   02/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 30/01/2023   3,500   26455/23 30/05/2023 Yekaterina Vladimirovna MALYSHEVA 1980 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow City Court   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 05/04/2023   3,500   26588/23 27/06/2023 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GORCHAKOV 1984     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 27/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention from 6.55 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 3.00   a.m. on 28/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2   July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000   26650/23 20/06/2023 Andrey Sergeyevich LANDO 1993     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 20/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 9.45   p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 5.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000   27042/23 15/06/2023 Alyona Sergeyevna REZNICHENKO 1996     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 15/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30   p.m. until 9.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000   27118/23 15/06/2023 Karina Olegovna SHEYFER 1993     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 15/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.07   p.m. until 10.40 p.m. on 27/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.