CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 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 } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; 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 } .s527DE03B { width:127.09pt; 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 } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF MESTETSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 16174/19 and 17 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mestetskiy and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 27 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 against solo demonstrators. 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 10 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles   10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article   10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §   91, 26 April 2016). 8.     In the leading case of Novikova and Others v. Russia (cited above, §§   112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis , Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§   432-42, 7 February 2017). 9.     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 interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     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. 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 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); Frumkin v. Russia , no.   74568/12, 5   January 2016, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no. 21613/07, 3   October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; 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 12.     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 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, mutatis mutandis , Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), 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 10 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; 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 18 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Ioannis Ktistakis   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location Date Purpose of the demonstration Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Name of the court Date   Other relevant information Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     16174/19 10/03/2019 Mikhail Leonidovich MESTETSKIY 1980 Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg Moscow 02/06/2018 Support of O.   Sentsov article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 10/09/2018   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention- arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 02/06/2018 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     32307/19 07/06/2019 Yevgeniy Alekseyevich ZHUKOV 1998 Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Kurgan 24/02/2019 Raising awareness of the consequences of President Putin’s politics for taxpayers   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   administrative detention of 15   days Kurgan Regional Court 10/04/2019 conviction for hiding face during a public event (see Ibragimova v.   Russia , no.   68537/13, 30 August 2022) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence in respect of participation in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy held on the same date,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally in support of A. Navalnyy, Kurgan, 31/01/2021 - conviction under article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO, community works of 20 hours, final judgment: 16/03/2021, Kurgan Regional Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 02/04/2019 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of the appeal under the CAO 5,000     41196/20 10/08/2020 Marina Sergeyevna IONOVA 2000 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Kazan 26/12/2019 Support of a camp against construction of a combustion plant article 20.2 § 2 of CAO   administrative detention of 8   days Supreme Court of Tatarstan 26/02/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) between 16/11/2018 and 17/11/2018 as administrative suspect, in connection with prosecution in respect of the rally of 09/09/2018, and (ii) on 20/02/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence in respect of the events of 26/12/2019,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - first set of proceedings (final judgment of 26/02/2020),   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally against the pension reform, 09/09/2018, Kazan - arrest, conviction under article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan of 16/02/2022.   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 25/02/2020 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     2872/21 08/12/2020 Marina Anatolyevna KEN 1975 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg St Petersburg 12/03/2020 Protest against constitutional amendments article 20.2 § 2 of CAO   fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 09/06/2020 distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) from 12/03/2020 to 13/03/2020 as administrative suspect, and (ii) from 18/07/2020 to 19/07/2020 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of administrative proceedings,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally against constitutional amendments, 16/07/2020, St Petersburg, conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 15 days, final judgment of 24/07/2020, St Petersburg City Court 5,000     13712/21 10/02/2021 Dzhulyeta Ramizovna MAGOMEDNABIYEVA 1982 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan Kazan 01/08/2020 Support of S.   Furgal article 20.2 § 2 of CAO   community work of 20   hours Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 09/09/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     17138/21 12/03/2021 Yekaterina Yevgenyevna SURSYAKOVA 1975 Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich Yekaterinburg (i) Yekaterinburg 01/08/2020 Support of S. Furgal         (ii) Yekaterinburg 31/01/2021 Protest against suppression of free political expression and the authorities’ repressive politics         (iii) Yekaterinburg 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest (i) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,   fine of RUB   10,000,       (ii) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO,   community service, of 200   hours,           (iii) article 20.2   §   8 of the CAO   fine of RUB   250,000 (i) Sverdlovsk Regional Court 11/11/2020           (ii) Sverdlovsk Regional Court 07/04/2021                 (iii) Sverdlovsk Regional Court 20/04/2022 rotation - event classified as assembly post facto, (3rd set of proceedings) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - all sets of proceedings       4,000     53091/21 08/10/2021 Mikhail Dmitriyevich MALININ 1992 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Yaroslavl 18/01/2021 Support of A.   Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   fine of RUB   10,000 Yaroslavl Regional Court 12/04/2021 ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of a police station Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - rally in support of A. Navalnyy, 23/01/2021, article   20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Yaroslavl Regional Court, 21/06/2021 4,000     58322/21 05/11/2021 Yana Yuryevna SPATAR 1985 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Moscow 19/01/2021 Support of A.   Navalnyy article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2021   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station on 19/01/2021 for the sole purpose to draw 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     27161/22 05/05/2022 Makar Vladimirovich SOKOLOV 1995 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Vologda 03/09/2021 Protest against the arbitrariness of the local police article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   fine of RUB   6,000 Vologda Regional Court 08/11/2021 ban on public events at certain locations -in the vicinity of the regional Department of Interior building   3,500   34710/22 11/07/2022 Irina Olegovna SOLODOVA 1985 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Volgograd 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 2 of CAO   fine of RUB   20,000 Volgograd Regional Court 31/03/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, after compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   35417/22 11/07/2022 Darya Yuryevna KUCHERENKO 1994 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Ufa 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 25/04/2022   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   39555/22 30/07/2022 Roman Zosimovich ALEKSANDROV 1983 Krikun Leonid Leonidovich St Petersburg St Petersburg 08/03/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 2 of CAO   administrative detention of 5   days St Petersburg City Court 31/03/2022   distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station between 08/03/2022 and 09/03/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and 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 09/03/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000   41109/22 12/08/2022 Anastasiya Aleksandrovna ANDRYUSHINA 2001 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk 26/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   fine of RUB   2,000, and   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   fine of RUB   150,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/04/2022     and   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/04/2022   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   41116/22 12/08/2022 Anna Andreyevna SOLOVYEVA 2002 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Krasnoyarsk 26/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   fine of RUB   2,000,     and   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   fine of RUB   150,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/04/2022         and   Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/04/2022   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000   41434/22 18/08/2022 Alina Romanovna MALYSHEVA 2002 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Smolensk 17/03/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 2 of CAO   community service of 20 hours Smolensk Regional Court 27/04/2022 distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 17/03/2022 and 19/03/2022 for drawing up an offence record and as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   43151/22 12/08/2022 Yuliya Igorevna VORONTSOVA 1990 Kulikov Sergey Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO   administrative detention of 2   days Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 13/04/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to a police station, detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and 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   43533/22 20/08/2022 Mikhail Anatolyevich SLYUSAR 1993 Kosnyrev Vladislav Vladimirovich Syktyvkar Syktyvkar 27/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO     fine of RUB   15,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 20/04/2022 ban on public events at certain locations - in the vicinity of the court buildings Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station on 27/02/2022 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   329/23 29/11/2022 Vladimir Vladimirovich AVDONIN 1992 Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich Samara Samara 27/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 29/07/2022   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 27/02/2022 for the scope purpose of drawing up a record of the 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.