CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 juillet 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s4EFA53D { 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; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s8DDD4CD6 { height:11pt } .sB67E2423 { height:145.2pt } .s580FC71E { height:0.95pt } .sB5B46D70 { height:46.45pt } .sB4B6F07F { height:95.35pt } .sDD446575 { height:31.55pt } .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 OBLASOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 23295/21 and 22 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Oblasova 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 13 June 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. Some applicants 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 (the CAO); and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§ 38 ‑ 42, 8   October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article   6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 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 the applicants’ complaints 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 4 July 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 charges Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1]     23295/21 14/04/2021 Tatyana Yuryevna OBLASOVA 1972 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Kurgan   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kurgan Regional Court 15/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     23489/21 12/04/2021 Igor Yevgenyevich PROKOPYEV 1997 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Kurgan   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Kurgan Regional Court 16/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     23817/21 14/04/2021 Vladimir Sergeyevich SAVICHEV 2002 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Balakovo, Saratov Region   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Saratov Region Court 19/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     23866/21 20/04/2021 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich FADEYEV 1987 Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevcich Nizhniy Tagil Rally in support of political prisoners   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community work of 30   hours Sverdlovsk Regional Court 31/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     24155/21 16/04/2021 Denis Sergeyevich BASKOVSKIY 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 12   days Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 02/02/2021 and 03/02/2021 as an administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 03/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     24179/21 16/04/2021 Kenenbek ARZYMATOV 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10   days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 02/02/2021 and 04/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     24724/21 29/03/2021 Yekaterina Borisovna GRITSAYENKO 1975 Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Rostov-on-Don   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10   days Rostov Regional Court 02/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 29/01/2021 as administrative suspect in the CAO proceedings concerning the rally of 23/01/2021, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 29/01/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     24725/21 29/03/2021 NIkolay NIkolayevich KOMAROV 1983 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 4 days Moscow City Court 04/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     24726/21 29/03/2021 Oleg Dmitriyevich KALACHEV 1988 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 12   days Moscow City Court 09/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   25935/21 27/04/2021 Aleksey Vitalyevich MARTYNOV 1988 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10   days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     5,000   26872/21 17/05/2021 Nastasya Igorevna FILYAYEVA 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 10   days Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention- arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 03/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 03/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   26899/21 17/05/2021 Yelena Artemovna KITAYEVA 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 12   days Moscow City Court 09/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 02/02/2021 and 03/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 03/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     5,000   26911/21 17/05/2021 Oleg Yuryevich GRYAZNOV 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 15   days Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   26929/21 17/05/2021 Vadim Viktorovich BULATOV 1979 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 06/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   26943/21 17/05/2021 Samvel Valeryevich MNATSAKANYAN 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative detention of 6   days Moscow City Court 08/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention- arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   27811/21 28/04/2021 Anzhelika Yuryevna YAROVAYA 1994     Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Belgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Belgorod Regional Court 15/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   28125/21 23/04/2021 Sergey Vasilyevich OSTROUKHOV 1957     Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Kaluga   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days Kaluga Regional Court 19/02/2021   3,500   32935/21 01/06/2021 Yelena Mikhaylovna KADETOVA 1964 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Rally in support of Khabarovsk protesters   Krasnoyarsk   25/07/2020     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 17/12/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   33047/21 09/06/2021 Semen Andreyevich KALININ 1998 Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Tagil Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community work of 30   hours Sverdlovsk Regional Court 07/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention- arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   34094/21 06/06/2021 Irina Denisovna CHEPLOUTSKAYA 1996 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Vladivostok   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Primorye Regional Court 30/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   34308/21 07/06/2021 Nina Yuryevna KVYATKOVSKAYA 1980 Tunikov Mikhail Igorevich Vladivostok Rally in support of S.   Furgal   Vladivostok   19/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 08/12/2020   3,500   34454/21 03/06/2021 Andrey Vladimirovich BIKULOV 1987 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 29/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   35107/21 25/06/2021 Georgiy Anatolyevich SHEVELEV 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 20/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.