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 } .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 } .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 } .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 ZOLOTUKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48034/21 and 19 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 Zolotukhin 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 taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. They 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 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.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention lodged by some of the applicants and concerning the fairness of the proceedings and the alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. 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 the 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 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]     48034/21 09/09/2021 Roman Alekseyevich ZOLOTUKHIN 2001 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Lenin street, Kursk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours’ community service Kursk Regional Court 27/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     57130/21 06/11/2021 Maksim Andreyevich YURASOV 2001 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO,   and article 19.3 § 1 of CAO       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 10 days’ administrative arrest; and 10   days’ administrative arrest     fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 01/06/2021 (two decisions)         Moscow City Court 05/09/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - In respect of all sets of the proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 and 24/02/2022 - 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 (raised in the administrative proceedings) 5,000     46431/22 12/09/2022 Svetlana Viktorovna KAVERZINA 1969 Nechayeva Olga Yuryevna Novosibirsk Public event "Immortal Regiment"   Novosibirsk   08/05/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 7 days’ administrative arrest Novosibirsk Regional Court 12/05/2022 Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence imposed on the applicant by the trial court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - Conviction under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO for publishing of and anti-war post in social network Vkontakte on 23/04/2022/ administrative fine of RUB 30,000/ Novosibirsk Regional Court on 04/10/2022 (appeal) 5,000     50663/22 15/10/2022 Aleksandr Pavlovich ZHODZISHSKIY 2001 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 15/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) ((raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000     50914/22 14/10/2022 Mikhail Aleksandrovich OSINTSEV 1997 Mangileva Vera Borisovna Yekaterinburg Manifestation against the war In Ukraine   Yekaterinburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 22/06/2022   3,500     50916/22 15/10/2022 Guzaliya Galimovna KHAMIDULLINA 2002 Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich Samara Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Samara   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 16/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 27/02/2022 - 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     51227/22 06/10/2022 Marat Alikovich GILMANOV 1984 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 27/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 24/02/2022 - 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 4,000     51272/22 22/10/2022 Yuliya Yuryevna GRENKOVA 1965 Sabirov Rim Faridovich Kazan Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Kazan   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 22/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 27/02/2022 - 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 (raised in the administrative proceedings) 4,000     51298/22 23/10/2022 Sergey Aleksandrovich TETERKIN 1992     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   02/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 23/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention from 7.40   p.m. on 02/03/2022 to 2 a.m. on 03/03/2022 - 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   51511/22 05/10/2022 Galina Yuryevna MOSKALENKO 1992 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   01/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 01/03/2022 - 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 (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   51736/22 26/10/2022 Larisa Vladimirovna LEONOVA 1966     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 27/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention from 5.17   p.m. to 10.38 p.m. on 27/02/2022 - 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art.   27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 4,000   52368/22 02/11/2022 Polina Andreyevna DOBROTSVETOVA 2000     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - 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 (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   54435/22 02/11/2022 Yekaterina Grachevna DYAKONENKO 1987 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - 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 ( (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 4,000   54540/22 05/11/2022 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich BIZUN 1990 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   03/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 03/03/2022 - 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 (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 4,000   55526/22 29/10/2022 Mariya Olegovna SILIVERSTOVA 2000     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Yekaterinburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 29/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - 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 (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   55553/22 10/11/2022 Aleksey Sergeyevich PRIMECHAYEV 1999     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 11/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention from 7.30   p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 12.02 a.m. on 25/02/2022 - 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; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   55705/22 22/11/2022 Veronika Valeryevna NARYKOVA 1998 Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   26/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 07/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention from 4.40   p.m. to 9.16 p.m. on 26/02/2022 - Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (raised in the administrative proceedings   4,000   55769/22 05/11/2022 Lyudmila Nikolayevna SVEZHENTSEVA 1982 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 24/02/2022 - 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 (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 4,000   55772/22 18/11/2022 Anastasiya Sergeyevna RAZGULOVA 1990 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Kazan   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 20/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 27/02/2022 - 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 (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 4,000   56490/22 16/11/2022 Yegor Borisovich DANICHEV 1990 Arshinova Valeriya Aleksandrovna Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 27/02/2022 - 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 (raised in the administrative proceedings),   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.