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 } .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 } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 } .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 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF MAKARENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 33808/21 and 32 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 Makarenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 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. 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   9 ‑ 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 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 4 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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 per applicant (in euros) [1]     33808/21 03/06/2021 Pavel Vladimirovich MAKARENKO 1978 Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pyatigorsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO detention for 1 day Stavropol Regional Court 24/03/2021 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 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021, when the applicant was taken to the court. 4,000     36964/21 16/07/2021 Yelisey Vyacheslavovich GULYAYEV 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Chelyabinsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 14/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     38113/21 20/07/2021 Richard Roman KING 1986 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Omsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 15 days Omsk Regional Court 27/01/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     39237/21 28/07/2021 Pavel Sergeyevich BASARGIN 1978 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Chelyabinsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court 31/03/2021   3,500     42660/21 11/06/2021 Darya Eduardovna MALGINOVA 1997 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kazan   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/02/2021   3,500     42691/21 11/08/2021 Denis Vadimovich VOLKOV 1993 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kazan   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 10/03/2021   3,500     42736/21 03/08/2021 Aleksey Gennadyevich BELAVIN 1986     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Samara   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 13/05/2021   3,500     42961/21 17/08/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich PETRENKO 1989 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Khabarovsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 09/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     43005/21 23/08/2021 Valentin Nikolayevich KUZNETSOV 1944 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Omsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   75,000 Omsk Regional Court 09/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,300   43006/21 18/08/2021 Anastasiya Yuryevna FEDCHUK 2002 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Tomsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Tomsk Regional 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 - raised on appeal. 3,500   43072/21 18/08/2021 Yaroslav Feliksovich SAVIN 1982 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Astrakhan   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Astrakhan Regional Court 05/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   43498/21 18/08/2021 Danila Borisovich CHUMAKOV 2002 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Magnitogorsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 50 hours of community work Chelyabinsk Regional Court 31/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   45066/21 18/08/2021 Mikhail Valentinovich FROLOV 1976 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Omsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Omsk Regional Court 09/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   47052/21 15/09/2021 Vyacheslav Viktorovich SHCHERBININ 1985 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Tomsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Tomsk Regional Court 26/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   49680/21 17/09/2021 Sergey Ekhtibarovich SHICHKIN 1988 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Ukhta   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 17/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   51757/21 30/09/2021 Natalya Stepanovna KHOLOPOVA 1954 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Syktyvkar   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 31/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021 4,000   51794/21 30/09/2021 Ivan Sergeyevich ISAKOV 1993 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Syktyvkar   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 31/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   51975/21 15/10/2021 Vladislav Valeryevich BENDER 2003 Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Perm   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 20/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   53298/21 07/10/2021 Aleksey Valeryevich NIKOLAYEV 1979 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kamchatka Regional Court 07/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   53300/21 07/10/2021 Galina Gennadyevna VURDOVA 1968 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Syktyvkar   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 07/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   53463/21 11/10/2021 Dmitriy Nikolayevich OSIPOV 1979 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Syktyvkar   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 15/09/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   53468/21 11/10/2021 Mariya Gennadyevna DMITRIYEVA 1997 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Syktyvkar   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 26/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   54442/21 27/10/2021 Pavel Nikolayevich BALOV 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 12/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500   54782/21 10/10/2021 Anastasiya Sergeyevna NAZAROVA 2000 Tkachenko Nikita Nikolayevich Belgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Belgorod   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Belgorod Regional Court 02/08/2021   3,500   54784/21 10/10/2021 Yegor Sergeyevich KOZLITIN 2000 Tkachenko Nikita Nikolayevich Belgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Belgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Belgorod Regional Court 12/04/2021   3,500   55238/21 18/10/2021 Kirill Anatolyevich IZMALKOV 1979 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Syktyvkar   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 26/05/2021   3,500   56647/21 20/10/2021 Darya Vladimirovna ZELENAYA 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 20/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   56867/21 15/11/2021 Firuza Rustamovna SAMIYEVA 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 17/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.20 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 5 p.m. on 03/02/2021 4,000   56870/21 15/11/2021 Andrey Vitalyevich KRIKUN 2001 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.40 a.m. until 8 p.m. on 02/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   57256/21 15/11/2021 Zabava Rodionovna VOLKOVA 1988 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St   Petersburg City Court 18/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   57388/21 08/11/2021 Yegor Alekseyevich DOMOZHIROV 1994 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 12/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   57594/21 10/11/2021 Anastasiya Mikhaylovna CHUBAROVA 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   02/02/2021             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 11/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   23794/23 29/05/2023 Yegor Igorevich PODLESNYY 1996 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Anti-war protest   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 13/02/2023   3,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.