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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF ZAKHAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 43102/15 and 24 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 Zakharova 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, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§   46-59, 1   March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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, 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 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 Yartsev v. Russia , no.   16683/17, §§ 28-38, 20   July 2021, concerning the administrative conviction for waving banners with slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public assembly. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings and Article 11 of the Convention regarding restrictions on location or time of public events. 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. 15.     The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Holds that there has been 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 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 / 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]     43102/15 17/08/2015   Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949   Irina Leonidovna KALMYKOVA 1960   Yekaterina Anatolyevna MALDON 1972   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Protest against military actions in Donbass (Ms Zakharova)   Moscow   28/08/2014     Rally in memory of the deceased participants of Euromaidan   Moscow   20/02/2015         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (Ms Zakharova)             article 19.3 § 1 of CAO (all applicants) fine of RUB   10,000 (Ms Zakharova)             fine of RUB   1,000 (each applicant) Moscow City Court 12/03/2015 (Ms   Zakharova)           Moscow City Court 04/06/2015 (all applicants)   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11   p.m. on 20/02/2015 until 3.30 p.m. on 21/02/2015 (Ms   Zakharova), from 10.20 p.m. on 20/02/2015 until 3.35   p.m. on 21/02/2015 (Ms   Kalmykova) and from 10.20   p.m. on 20/02/2015 until 10.15   a.m. on 21/02/2015 (Ms   Maldon);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - as regards all applicants in relation to the rally on 20/02/2015.     4,000 (to each of the applicants)     38205/16 15/06/2016   Roman Petrovich ROSLOVTSEV 1979   Maksim Sergeyevich CHISTOV 1987   Kirill Aleksandrovich FILONENKO 1980   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Political rally   Moscow   18/08/2015           Commemoration of Boris Nemtsov (Mr Roslovtsev)   Moscow   27/02/2016 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (Mr Roslovtsev and Mr Chistov), article 20.2 § 8 of CAO (Mr Filonenko)       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (Mr Roslovtsev)   fine of RUB 10,000 (Mr   Roslovtsev); fine of RUB   10,000 (Mr   Chistov), fine of RUB   150,000 (Mr   Filonenko);   fine of RUB 10,000 (Mr Roslovtsev)   Moscow City Court 22/01/2016 (all applicants)             Moscow City Court 28/06/2016 (Mr Roslovtsev)     3,500 (to be paid to Mr   Roslovtsev); 3,500 (to be paid to Mr   Chistov) and 5,000 (to be paid to Mr   Filonenko)     12093/17 05/10/2016 Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949   Olga Mikhaylovna MAZUROVA 1960     Pigoleva Darya Sergeyevna Moscow March of Change   Moscow   12/12/2015       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (both applicants)     fine of RUB   20,000 (Ms   Zakharova)       fine of RUB   15,000 (Ms   Mazurova) Moscow City Court 22/04/2016 (Ms   Zakharova)   Moscow City Court 08/04/2016 (Ms Mazurova) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. (Ms Mazurova) and 5.40 p.m. (Ms Zakharova) respectively;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000 (to each of the applicants)     38839/17 11/05/2017 Igor Alekseyevich KLOCHKOV 1972 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Recitation of the Russian Constitution   Moscow   12/09/2016 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Moscow City Court   12/12/2016 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.40 p.m. until 9 p.m. on 12/09/2016;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     80382/17 10/11/2017       and     18239/18 12/03/2018 Semen Aleksandrovich KOCHKIN 1993 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Anti-corruption protest   Cheboksary   26/03/2017     Political rally   Cheboksary   07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 30 days of community work             40 hours of community work Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 31/08/2017       Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 14/11/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 5.40 p.m. on 10/10/2017;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative ‑ offence proceedings;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for the display of slogans/banners/other symbols by participants in public events - the applicant was convicted under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO and fined RUB 1,000 for participating in the unauthorised rally and shouting anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the simultaneous Young Guard’s event on 26/03/2017 (final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic on 11/05/2017). 4,500       82701/17 29/11/2017       and     11740/20 16/02/2020;             33636/20 22/07/2020 Oleg Aleksandrovich YELANCHIK 1990 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow         Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow           Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Anti-corruption rally   Moscow   26/03/2017     Rally to support Ivan Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019     Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000             fine of RUB   20,000             fine of RUB   15,000   Moscow City Court 29/05/2017           Moscow City Court 16/08/2019           Moscow City Court 22/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.40 p.m. on 26/03/2017 until 2 a.m. on 27/03/2017 and from 7.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 until 6.40 p.m. on 29/07/2019; (2) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.10 p.m. until 7   p.m. on 12/06/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 4,000     2930/18 21/12/2017       and     49303/18 10/10/2018     Andrey Sergeyevich PROKUDIN 1990 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow           Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Anti-corruption rally   Tver   26/03/2017     "Big Clean-Up Day"   Tver   07/07/2017     Opposition rally   Tver   05/05/2018     Protest against retirement age hike   Tver   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000             fine of RUB   11,000             detention for 5   days           detention for 20   days Tver Regional Court 29/06/2017           Tver Regional Court 16/05/2018           Tver Regional Court 16/05/2018         Tver Regional Court 14/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station from 11 p.m. on 05/05/2018 until 12.40 p.m. on 07/05/2018 and from 5.55 p.m. on 09/09/2018 until 11.25   a.m. on 10/09/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 5,000     5522/18 08/01/2018 Aleksandr Borisovich KLUBOV 1974 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Anti-corruption rally   St Petersburg   12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 500,       fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 13/07/2017   St Petersburg City Court 13/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.20   p.m. on 12/06/2017 until 11 p.m. on 14/06/2017;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     18015/18 30/03/2018;     and     51173/18 19/10/2018 Zakhar Borisovich SARAPULOV 1992 Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Political rally   Irkutsk   04/11/2017           Political rally   Irkutsk   01/05/2018     Opposition rally   Irkutsk   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 6   days                 detention for 7   days           fine of RUB   150,000   Irkutsk Regional Court 30/11/2017               Irkutsk Regional Court 26/06/2018         Irkutsk Regional Court 20/06/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which ended with the final decisions taken on 20/06/2018 and 26/06/2018 respectively. 5,000   19604/18 11/04/2018 Leonid Vladimirovich SANKIN 1963 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy’s Presidential Candidacy   Rostov-on-Don   07/10/2017 article 20.1 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 3   days Rostov Regional Court 20/10/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000   32099/18 21/06/2018 Vadim Vilyevich KHAYRULLIN 1972 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of A.   Navalnyy’s Presidential Candidacy   Kaliningrad   07/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Kaliningrad Regional Court 21/12/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500   37194/18 27/07/2018 Vadim Leonidovich KOBZEV 1997 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Gathering in support of A.   Navalnyy’s Presidential Candidacy   Rostov-on-Don   24/12/2017 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 10   days Rostov Regional Court 27/01/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000   59595/18 08/12/2018 Kirill Valeryevich ISHUTIN 1984 Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow Opposition rally   Vladimir   05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO,     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO detention for 2   days;     fine of RUB   5,000 Vladimir Regional Court 08/06/2018   Vladimir Regional Court 11/09/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative ‑ offence proceedings. 5,000   20008/19 02/04/2019 Mikhail Olegovich ALEKSEYEV 1990 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally against retirement age hike   Khabarovsk   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court 07/11/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   25134/19 29/04/2019 Igor Anatolyevich ZHULIMOV 1962     Rally against retirement age hike   Penza   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 5   days Penza Regional Court 09/11/2018   5,000   31562/19 27/05/2019         and       9339/20 30/01/2020           Vladislav Aleksandrovich BARABANOV 1997 Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich Nizhniy Novgorod             Anosova Lidiya Sergeyevna Orekhovo-Zuyevo Protest against retirement age hike   Nizhniy Novgorod   09/09/2018     Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 70 hours of community work                 detention for 7   days Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 28/11/2018             Moscow City Court 02/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 16/09/2018, (2)   escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.50 p.m. on 27/07/2019 until 10 a.m. on 29/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000   43728/19 08/08/2019 Svetlana Alekseyevna GANNUSHKINA 1942 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally to support Oyub Titiyev   Moscow   09/07/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 20/03/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 2 p.m. until 4.05 p.m. on 09/07/2018;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.           4,000   46172/19 10/08/2019 Nikita Vladimirovich ZAYTSEV 1997 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Protest against the demolition of the “Solovey” cinema centre   Moscow   23/11/2018     Opposition march   Moscow   14/09/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000                 detention for 5   days Moscow City Court 28/03/2019               Moscow City Court 20/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/11/2018 and 16/09/2018; (2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.35 p.m. on 18/09/2019 until 11.06 a.m. on 19/09/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings. 5,000   21144/23 13/05/2023 Nikolay Sergeyevich KAMYSHEV 1995     Protest against war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 01/03/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6 p.m. until 10.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022. 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.