CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juin 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 } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF KOMPANIYETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 24147/21 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kompaniyets and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 May 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 Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 62-65, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the 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 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   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]     24147/21 16/04/2021 Aleksey Maksimovich KOMPANIYETS 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 12   days Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3.02 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 5.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021 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, 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     31707/21 07/06/2021 Aleksey Nikolayevich RODIONOV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 15   days Moscow City Court 09/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 11.05 a.m. on 02/02/2021 to 3 p.m. on 03/02/2021 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, 09/02/2021,   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     45313/21 23/08/2021 Tatyana Viktorovna SITNICHKINA 1999 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 19/03/2021 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: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 19/03/2021 4,000     45320/21 23/08/2021 Anastasiya Ruslanovna ANDRIYANOVA 2000 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 23/03/2021 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: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 23/03/2021 4,000     45335/21 23/08/2021 Olga Arkadyevna KHRASTINOVA 1990 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 30/03/2021 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: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 30/03/2021 4,000     45336/21 30/08/2021 Mariya Aleksandrovna ZAGVOZKINA 1998 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnoyarsk   31/01/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 03/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 03/06/2021 3,500     45339/21 30/08/2021 Aleksandra Andreyevna POLEZHAYEVA 1993 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnoyarsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 20/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 20/05/2021 3,500     45344/21 30/08/2021 Semen Vitalyevich GUSAROV 2001 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnoyarsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 03/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 4.30 p.m. on 25/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal 4,000     45375/21 12/08/2021 Marat Anasovich KAMALOV 1968 Shagiyeva Regina Ilgizovna Leninigorsk Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Naberezhnyye Chelny   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 26/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 and 22/03/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record; escorting to the police station on 03/02/2021 without compiling any reports; arrest and escorting to the Naberezhnyye Chelny City Court on 19/04/2021; raised on appeal 4,000   53283/21 09/10/2021 Artem Andreyevich GAVRILOV 1989 Savin Aleksandr Vasilyevich Stavropol Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Stavropol   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Stavropol Regional Court 08/09/2021 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: Stavropol Regional Court, 08/09/2021     4,000   1426/22 30/12/2021 Nikita Nilolayevich KATAYEV 1985 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Perm   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 12/07/2021 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, 12/07/2021 3,500   14670/22 26/02/2022 Aleksandr Viktorovich TISHCHENKO 1993     Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 31/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 12 a.m. on 24/01/2021 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: Voronezh Regional Court, 31/08/2021 4,000   17064/22 05/03/2022 Anastasiya Anatolyevna YURCHENKO 1978 Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Usolye-Sibirskoye   20/11/2021                   article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Irkutsk Regional Court 08/02/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court, 08/02/2022 3,500   23615/22 28/03/2022 Artem Viktorovich RYABOV 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Meeting with an MP   Moscow 25/09/2021   Meeting with an MP   Moscow   25/09/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO detention for 7   days       fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/09/2021       Moscow City Court 01/02/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.30 p.m. on 25/09/2021 to 2.15 p.m. on 27/09/2021 until 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 decisions: Moscow City Court, 29/09/2021 and 01/02/2022,   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,   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO) 5,000   24677/22 06/08/2021 Maksim Sergeyevich DOROSHENKO 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 7   days Moscow City Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1.55 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 5 p.m. on 01/02/2022 until 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 - Moscow City Court, 13/05/2021,   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   24684/22 06/08/2021 Dmitriy Romanovich YEPISHIN 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 7   days Moscow City Court 26/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.20 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 12 p.m. on 01/02/2021 until 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, 26/02/2021,   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   24699/22 06/08/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich KAYGORODTSEV 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days Moscow City Court 26/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.50 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 5.40 p.m. on 01/02/2021 until 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 - Moscow City Court, 26/02/2021,   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   36204/22 04/07/2022 Olga Vadimovna MELNIKOVA 1991 Sirinova Olga Vladimirovna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   15/02/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 St Petersburg City Court 05/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 8.30 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 5.57 p.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: St Petersburg City Court, 05/05/2022 4,000   37271/22 06/07/2022 Pavel Valeryevich YAKOVLEV 1984 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   03/03/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 5 days St Petersburg City Court 14/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.53 p.m. on 03/03/2022 to 12 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: St Petersburg City Court, 14/04/2022,   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   40249/22 30/07/2022 Mikhail Vladimirovich KAZAKOV 2000 Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna Nizhniy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Nizhniy Novgorod   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 18/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 7.40 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 6.20 p.m. on 25/02/2022 until 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: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 18/05/2022 4,000   41422/22 13/08/2022 Pavel Vladimirovich LAPIN 1997 Zyryanova Mariya Sergeyevna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 5 days St Petersburg City Court 14/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 24/02/2022 to 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: St Petersburg City Court, 14/04/2022,   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   41720/22 12/08/2022 Ilya Anatolyevich KORKISHKO 1997 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 12/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 5.26 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 3.14 p.m. on 07/03/2022 until 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 - St Petersburg City Court, 12/04/2022 4,000   47539/22 16/09/2022 Natalya Nikolayevna YERMOLINA-LUGOVSKAYA 1972     Anti-war protest   Samara   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Samara Regional Court 09/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. to 9.25 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: Samara Regional Court, 09/06/2022 4,000   48595/22 25/09/2022 Guliya Faridovna MUKHAMETZYANOVA 1993 Sabirov Rim Faridovich Kazan Anti-war protest   Kazan   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 25/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 06/03/2022 to 07/03/2022 until 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: Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 25/05/2022                 4,000   50135/22 14/10/2022 Anastasiya Andreyevna IBASHYAN 2003 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   Moscow   28/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 11/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention 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, 11/07/2022 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.