CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; 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 } .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 } .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 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DAVIDIS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 1836/19 and 27 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Davidis and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 July 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). Most of the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol. 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.     Most of the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocol, 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 and its Protocol in the light of its findings in Frumkin v.   Russia , no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with regard to disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies; Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26   April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, Tsvetkova and Others , cited above, §§ 179-91, and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38‑42, 8   October   2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of an administrative detention; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos.   60921/17 and   7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public events; and Yartsev v. Russia , no.   16683/17, §§ 33-38, 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 13.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings and the resulting convictions and sentences. In view of the findings in paragraphs above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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 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 raised by some of the applicants; 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 Protocol 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 5 September 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   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]     1836/19 26/12/2018 Sergey Konstantinovich DAVIDIS 1969     25/04/2021, 11.30 a.m. 27/04/2021, 1.30 p.m. (hearings in the applicant’s administrative-offence case) 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the 48 ‑ hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/04/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised rally on 21/04/2021 in support of A.   Navalnyy; final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/04/2021, detention of 10 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the courts of first instance were 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 - during an authorised rally on 26/02/2017, the law enforcement officers took the applicant’s 4 posters and banners with political slogans; the applicant’s administrative claim was definitely dismissed (last final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, on 27/06/2018) on the ground that the slogans did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved public event (see Yartsev v. Russia , no.   16683/17, §§ 33-38, 20 July 2021);   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 06/05/2017, during an approved public rally, the applicant speaker’s stand with political slogans was dismantled by law enforcement officers (the banners with slogans were taken off); the applicant’s administrative claim was definitely dismissed (last final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, on 08/05/2019) on the ground that the slogans did not correspond to the declared aims of a public event and that they were dangerous as likely to cause mass rioting (see Yartsev v. Russia , no.   16683/17, §§ 33-38, 20 July 2021); application lodged on 08/11/2019 5,000     5169/19 19/12/2018 Kirill Vitalyevich DENISOV 1988 Fedotova Yuliya Yevgenyevna Yekaterinburg 09/09/2018, 1.30 p.m. 11/09/2018 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative offence proceedings - final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 21/09/2018 4,000     15054/19 04/03/2019 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich KRUGLIK 1984 Pobol Sergey Yuryevich Odintsovo 26/09/2018, 8   a.m. 27/09/2018, 12.15 p.m. (record) 28/09/2018, 6.30 p.m. (court order) Detention without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit; detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record   3,000     19180/21 23/03/2021 Mariya Alekseyevna KHUDOYAROVA 1993 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul 22/04/2021, 5.35 p.m. unspecified time (after 6.30 p.m.) on 22/04/2021 (hearings in the applicant’s administrative-offence case) 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention 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 - final decisions: Volgograd Regional Court, 26/04/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative convictions under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in two unauthorised rallies in support of A. Navalnyy; final decisions: Volgograd Regional Court, 28/01/2021 and 26/04/2021, detention of 7 days and 25 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the courts of first instance (in her 2nd administrative-offence case) was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     32093/21 27/10/2021 Denis Viktorovich LEONTYEV 1983     12/09/2017 13/09/2017 Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest   On 04/06/2018 the applicant was convicted of a criminal offence, upheld by the final appeal instance on 21/08/2018. In 2020 the applicant brought civil proceedings seeking compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention between 12/09/2017 and 13/09/2017, the complaint was dismissed on the grounds that that period of detention had been counted as the applicant’s pre-trial detention and was deduced from his sentence, final decision Supreme Court of Russia, 06/10/2021       3,000     34321/21 25/06/2021   and   17198/22 16/03/2022 Mikhail Yuryevich CHIMAROV 2000 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod 23/01/2021, 3.04 p.m.   27/02/2022 24/01.2021, 11.30 a.m.   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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Novgorod Regional Court, on 26/02/2021 and 05/03/2022;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in an unauthorised rally in support of A.   Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Velikiy Novgorod; final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 26/02/2021, fine of RUB 10,000,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for anti-war solo protest on 27/02/2022 in Nizhniy Novgorod; final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 05/03/2022, detention of 12   days 5,000     41249/21 26/07/2021 Aleksey Viktorovich SOKIRKO 1974 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 22/01/2021, 5.05 p.m. 23/01/2021, 5.30 p.m. 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/01/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in a rally to support Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/01/2021, detention of 7   days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     41254/21 28/07/2021 Valentin Alekseyevich KHOROSHENIN 2001 Magomedova Luiza Magomedovna St Petersburg 27/01/2021   27/01/2021, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings in both sets of administrative proceedings - final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 04/02/2021 and 25/03/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction:   1) under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for posting a call on a social network to participate in a rally in support of A.   Navalnyy on 22/01/2021; final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 04/02/2021, detention of 7 days;   2) under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for posting a call on a social network to participate in a rally in support of A.   Navalnyy on 27/01/2021; final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 25/03/2021, detention of 7 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately in both sets of administrative proceedings, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     5,000     43407/21 01/07/2021 Pavel Dmitriyevich SYCHEV 1986 Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich Voronezh 23/01/2021, 8.00 a.m.   07/07/2021, 5.30 p.m. 23/01/2021, 4.35 p.m.   08/07/2021, 5.10 p.m. 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention 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 - final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 04/02/2021 and 09/07/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for a call to participate in an unauthorised rally in support of A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 04/02/2021, detention of 9 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the administrative detention was enforced immediately after the decision of the first-instance court on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   43505/21 12/08/2021 Kseniya Ilyinichna VERSTAKOVA 1996 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow 02/02/2021 03/02/2021, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three ‑ hour statutory period Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for sticking posters calling to take part in an unauthorised rally to support A. Navalnyy on 02/02/2021 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021, detention of 10 days     5,000   43506/21 12/08/2021 Vadim Andreyevich SOLOMENNIK 1997 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow 02/02/2021 03/02/2021, raised on appeal Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three ‑ hour statutory period Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for sticking posters calling to participate in an unauthorised rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 02/02/2021 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court 12/02/2021, detention of 10 days 5,000   44233/21 23/08/2021 Anastasiya Aleksandrovna KORSAKOVA 1981 Galeyeva Tatyana Olegovna Krasnoyarsk 22/01/2022 22/01/2022, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 12/01/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised rally to support A. Navalnyy: 1) on 21/04/2021 in Krasnoyarsk; final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 10/06/2021, fine of RUB   25,000; 2) on 23/01/2021 in Krasnoyarsk, final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 12/01/2022, detention for 8   days 5,000   53520/21 06/10/2021 Kirill Vladimirovich SEREBRENNIKOV 1996 Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg 30/01/2021 01/02/2021, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2. § 2 of the CAO for repost of a call to protest in support of A. Navalnyy on 28/01/2021, in Uralskiy village; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 07/04/2021, fine of RUB   30,000 4,000   57112/21 29/10/2021 Irina Anatolyevna MALTSEVA 1967 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 20/04/2021, 5.13 p.m. 20/04/2021, 10.14 p.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Ivanovo Regional Court, 30/04/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Ivanovo; final decision: Ivanovo Regional Court, 30/04/2021, detention of 3 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   59169/21 19/11/2021 Evelina Vyacheslavovna BURUTA 1981 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod 20.04.20211, 1.20 a.m. 21.04.2021, 13.50 p.m., raised on appeal Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 24/05/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 §   2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Velikiy Novgorod; final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 24/05/2021, fine of RUB 20,000       4,000   59999/21 03/12/2021 Stepan Viktorovich SOLODKIY 1987 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius 21/04/2021, 5.45 p.m. 22/04/2021, 3.15 p.m., raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic, 22/06/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Segezha; final decision: Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic, 22/06/2021, detention of 1 day 4,000   61697/21 10/12/2021 Dmitriy Lvovich IVANOV 1984 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 21/04/2021, 10 a.m. 22/04/2021, 4   p.m., raised on appeal Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Sakhalin Regional Court, 10/06/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Korsakov; final decision: Sakhalin Regional Court, 10/06/2021, fine of RUB 10,000 4,000   8031/22 14/01/2022 Irina Olegovna LOPATOVA 1996 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi 05/05/2018 05/05/2018 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity.   Civil proceedings for compensation on account of unlawful deprivation of liberty ended with the decision of 04/08/2021 of the Supreme Court of Russia dismissing the claim (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, § 103, 10/04/2018)   3,000   8102/22 07/01/2022 Svetlana Vladimirovna SATALKINA 1979 Usanova Olimpiada Valentinovna Nizhniy Novgorod 12/09/2021 12/09/2021 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article   20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 12/09/2021 in Magnitogorsk, final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 27/10/2021, fine of RUB 10,000 4,000   8348/22 25/01/2022 Dmitriy Yakovlevich SHUTOV 1976 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 31/01/2021 01/02/2021, raised on appeal on 23/09/2021 Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period   3,000   8352/22 25/01/2022 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KOMAROV 1985 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 02/09/2021 09/09/2021 02/09/2021 10/09/2021 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court, 17/09/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for solo demonstration in support of political prisoners on 02/09/2021 in Irkutsk; final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court, 17/09/2021, detention for 9 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000   8428/22 19/01/2022 Krasimir Khristov VRANSKI 1981 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg 19/01/2021 20/01/2021, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: St   Petersburg City Court, 20/07/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article   20.2 § 2 of the CAO for a call to participate in an eco-rally on 19/01/2021 in St Petersburg; final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 20/07/2021, fine of RUB 25,000 4,000   9127/22 27/01/2022 Konstantin Dmitriyevich RASPOPOV 1995 Gorshenev Mikhail Alekseyevich Voronezh 21/12/2020, 7.30 p.m. 22/12/2020, 5   p.m., raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 29/07/2021 4,000   11105/22 10/02/2022 Dmitriy Andreyevich URYUPIN 1966 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi 02/03/2021 02/03/2021, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 07/09/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for a call to organise an opposition meeting on 14/02/2021 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 07/09/2021, fine of RUB   20,000 4,000   12124/22 01/02/2022 Mikhail Alekseyevich GUSEV 2000 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 21/04/2021 22/04/2021, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Ivanovo Regional Court, 25/08/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - administrative conviction under article 20.2. § 5 of the CAO for solo picket in support of A.   Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Ivanovo; final decision: Ivanovo Regional Court, 25/08/2021, fine of RUB   10,000 4,000   22656/22 28/03/2022 Sergey Gennadyevich ROSS 1986 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow 24/09/2021 25/09/2021, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/09/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – administrative conviction under article 20.2. § 2 of the CAO for posting a call on social media to participate in a meeting with communist party deputies on 20/09/2021 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/09/2021, detention for 9 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO       5,000   39798/22 02/08/2022 Yekaterina Yevgenyevna BUBNOVA 1996 Zyryanova Mariya Sergeyevna St Petersburg 02/03/2022 03/03/2022, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings - final decision: St   Peterburg City Court, 05/04/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to protest against war in Ukraine on 27/02/2022 in St   Petersburg; final decision: St   Peterburg City Court, 05/04/2022, fine of RUB 20,000 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.