CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s7C2088F3 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; 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 } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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 }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF GOGOLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 4374/18 and 13 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gogolev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). 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 5 § 1 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 §   1 of the Convention. 8.     The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities,   Benham v. the United Kingdom , 10 June 1996, §§   40 ‑ 41   in   fine ,   Reports of Judgments and Decisions   1996-III). 9.     In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§   91 ‑ 96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13   February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3   March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10   April 2018, 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 on 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 § 1 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 they 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); Frumkin v. Russia ,   no.   74568/12, §§   93 ‑ 142, ECHR 2016 (extracts),   as to disproportionate measures in respect of participants and organisers of public events; 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; Elvira   Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; Butkevich , cited above, §§ 30-39, Fáber v. Hungary , no.   40721/08, §§ 35-36, 24 July 2012, RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia , no.   44561/11, §§   101-13, 11 May 2021, Timur Sharipov v.   Russia , no. 15758/13, §§ 25 and 34-35, 13 September 2022, Karatayev   v.   Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, §§ 21-27, 13 July 2021 and Kenareva and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   71779/17 and 5   others, §   11, 9 February 2023 with further references, as to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under the Convention or Protocols to it. In view of the above findings, 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, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers 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 5 § 1 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; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty); Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 11 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects Other complaints under   well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     4374/18 10/01/2018 Daniil Viktorovich GOGOLEV 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 08/07/2017 10/07/2017 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art. 6.9 of CAO, final decision on 12/07/2017 by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk),   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate execution of the sentence of detention in the case under Art. 20.1 of CAO (final decision on 26/07/2017 by Krasnodar Regional Court); an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect. 4,000     11309/18 08/02/2018 Zoren Rubenovich ISABEKYAN 1968 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg 22/05/2017 23/05/2017 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art. 19.3 of CAO, final decision on 15/08/2017 by the Novosibirsk Regional Court),   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – on 22/05/2017 the applicant, coordinator for NGO "Conscript’s school" assisting on conscription issues, was interviewing conscripts next to an enlistment office, with a view to preparing a report on conscripts’ rights; he was arrested (see above) for failure to get into a police vehicle (to submit to arrest)m and was then sentenced to detention in that connection in the above proceedings. 4,000     15422/18 28/02/2018 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich ANTOKHIN 1975 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi 13/08/2020 14/08/2020 Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§   63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019)   3,000     58779/18 20/11/2018 Oksana Petrovna VOLOBUYEVA 1973     04/11/2017 06/11/2017 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art. 20.1 of CAO, final decision on 22/05/2018 by the Moscow City Court);   Art.   11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - the applicant was arrested, as specified by the police officers, with a view to preventing "extremist activities consisting in organisation of non-approved rallies", following her arrival and stay in a dormitory in Moscow; according to the applicant, she was thereby prevented from participating in a protest rally to be held on 05/11/2017 4,000     15468/19 13/03/2019 Oyumaa Sedip oolovna DONGAK 1967 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 07/08/2018 07/08/2018   Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art.   10 (1) - restriction on freedom of expression for displaying a totalitarian symbol - the applicant was arrested on 07/08/2018 and sentenced to a fine of RUB   1,000 for displaying Nazi symbols (Art. 20.3 CAO, final decision on 13/09/2018 by the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic) (RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia, no.   44561/11, 11 May 2021, and Karatayev v.   Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, 13   July 2021) 4,000     24195/19 27/04/2019 Marina Aleksandrovna LUKYANETS 1976 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, §§   63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 04/02/2019 by the Moscow City Court),   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – the applicant was arrested at a protest rally on 05/05/2018 under rules for rally participants and was sentenced to a fine of RUB 15,000 in the above proceedings. 4,000     46866/19 06/08/2019 Yevgeniy Ivanovich POPOV 1990 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan 08/04/2019 09/04/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art.   6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in two sets of administrative-offence proceedings (Art.   20.2 § 5 and Art.   20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decisions on 07/05/2019 by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court),   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – the applicant was unlawfully deprived of liberty on 08-09/04/2019 in relation to a rally on 07/04/2019; he was sentenced to two fines of RUB 15,000 for, what the courts considered, as participation in that rally. 4,000     26888/20 01/06/2020 Stanislav Sergeyevich ZHARKOV 1991 Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg 17/11/2019 17/11/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art.   20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 17/03/2020 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court),   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant was unlawfully arrested at a rally against political repressions on 17/11/2019 and was sentenced, in the above proceedings, to a fine of RUB 10,000 for waving the flag of Russia during that rally. 4,000     51551/20 07/11/2020 Rushan Rafisovich KABIROV 1997     29/06/2020 30/06/2020 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)     3,000   52309/20 31/10/2020 Georgiy Genrikhovich MALETS 1990 Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow 03/02/2020 03/02/2020 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 14/05/2020 by the Moscow City Court),   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – on account of the applicant’s unlawful arrest at a rally on 03/02/2020 for allegedly violating the rules applicable to rally participants. 4,000   31998/21 16/06/2021 Boris Igorevich ZHIRNOV 1960 Arapova Galina Yuryevna Voronezh 13/11/2020 15/11/2020 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression:   (i) being assigned by a media outlet, the applicant, a journalist with a local newspaper, reported on the rally on 07/11/2020 to support former governor Furgal; he was arrested and sentenced to 3 ‑ day detention for participation in that rally (Art.   20.2 §   6.1 of CAO; final decision on 16/12/2020 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court),   (ii) on 10/11/2020 the applicant published a video on his YouTube channel which depicted banned a symbol related to a banned organisation; he was sentenced to 10-day detention (Art.   20.3. § 1 CAO, final decision on 27/01/2021 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court) (RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia, no.   44561/11, 11 May 2021, and Karatayev v.   Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, 13   July 2021). 5,000   32822/21 20/06/2021 Yekaterina Nikolayevna BIYAK 1984 Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich Moscow 12/11/2020 13/11/2020 13/11/2020 14/11/2020 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) Art.   6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art.   20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decision on 24/12/2020 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court),   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB   10,000 and two-day detention for, as the courts considered, participation in the rallies on 13/09/2020 and 15/09/2020 (Art.   20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decisions on 22/12/2020 and 24/12/2020, respectively, by the Khabarovsk Regional Court). 5,000   35185/21 18/06/2021 Yevgeniya Sergeyevna VANEYEVA 1996 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 11/02/2021 11/02/2021 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art.   6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art.   20.2 of CAO, final decision on 09/04/2021 by the Saratov Regional Court),   Art.   10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - the applicant created a chat in a social network to organise a rally in her village; receiving no support among her fellow villagers, she cancelled the event and removed the chat; she was arrested and sentenced to 20 hours of community work in the above proceedings.     4,000   7948/22 24/12/2021 Artem Aleksandrovich MAZANOV 1996 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg 31/01/2021 01/02/2021 Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§   63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – on account of the unlawful deprivation of liberty at a protest rally on 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021 (final decision: on 05/08/2021 by the St Petersburg City Court). 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.