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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .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 NIKOLSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 51348/21 and 22 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 Nikolskiy 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. 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, 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 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); and 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. 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 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]     51348/21 18/09/2021 Nikita Georgiyevich NIKOLSKIY 2001 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 08/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 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, 08/04/2021 4,000     51392/21 08/10/2021 Maksim Sergeyevich TEMERBAYEV 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 11/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 10   a.m. to 4 p.m. on 02/02/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 11/05/2021 4,000     54177/21 27/10/2021 Darya Alekseyevna OBRAZTSOVA 1999 Nazarov Ilya Yulyevich Moscow Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 11   p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 9 a.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, 28/04/2021 4,000     54186/21 19/10/2021 Yuriy Vladimirovich GURALSKIY 1983 Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention of 8 days Moscow City Court 20/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 5.30 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, 20/04/2021 5,000     55318/21 23/10/2021 Vladislava Denisovna LEONOVA 1999 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 03/06/2021 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, 03/06/2021 4,000     55382/21 26/10/2021 Anar Khazar Ogly DZHAFAROV 1997 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 26/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 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, 26/04/2021 4,000     56355/21 15/11/2021 Kirill Aleksandrovich STEPANOV 1996 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 25/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 11.45   p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 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, 25/05/2021 4,000     56850/21 26/10/2021 Gleb Andreyevich IVANOV 1994 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.58   p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 2.30   a.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/05/2021 4,000     57152/21 29/10/2021 Ruslan Gennadyevich VERNYY 1987 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 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, 19/05/2021 4,000   57162/21 29/10/2021 Tatyana Vladimirovna KUZMINA 2000 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 07/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1 a.m. on 02/02/2021 to 11.05 a.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, 07/06/2021 5,000   57165/21 29/10/2021 Natalya Sergeyevna NIKOLSKAYA 1979 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 25/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 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, 25/05/2021 4,000   57350/21 08/11/2021 Anton Dmitriyevich CHECHIN 1998 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Barnaul   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Altay Regional Court 04/08/2021 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: Altay Regional Court, 04/08/2021 4,000   57679/21 07/11/2021 Zulol Zafariddinovich DAVRONOV 1988 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Izzat Amono   Moscow   02/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/04/2021 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, 13/07/2021 4,000   57681/21 07/11/2021 Kosim Khudoydoyevich NAZAROV 1986 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Izzat Amono   Moscow   02/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/04/2021 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, 13/07/2021 4,000   57682/21 07/11/2021 Fayzullo DALERDZHONI 1992 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Izzat Amono   Moscow   02/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/04/2021 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, 13/07/2021 4,000   57686/21 07/11/2021 Abdunabi Mirzosharifovich TAVAROV 1972 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Izzat Amono   Moscow   02/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/04/2021 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, 13/07/2021 4,000   57691/21 07/11/2021 Bakhrom Abdurazykovich KHOLIKOV 1982 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Izzat Amono   Moscow   02/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/04/2021 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, 13/07/2021 4,000   57694/21 07/11/2021 Muboriz Abdumachidovich SHARIFOV 2000 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation in support of Izzat Amono   Moscow   02/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/04/2021 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, 13/07/2021 4,000   59042/21 27/11/2021 Timofey Pavlovich TARANOV 1993 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Saratov   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Saratov Regional Court 04/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Saratov Regional Court, 04/06/2021 3,500   59216/21 01/12/2021 Sergey Yuryevich FONOV 1996     Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 01/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12.43   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: Moscow City Court, 01/06/2021 4,000   59920/21 16/11/2021 Anton Sergeyevich MAKAROV 1997     Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1.34   p.m. to 8.20 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, 19/05/2021 4,000   443/22 04/12/2021 Mikhail Aleksandrovich IVANOV 2000 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Manifestation in support of political prisoners   Moscow   04/11/2020             article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 07/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2.25   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, 07/06/2021 4,000   916/22 01/12/2021 Maksim Anatolyevich AVDEYEV 1995 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Manifestation in support of Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 09/06/2021 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, 09/06/2021 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.