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 } .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 } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .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 RYABININ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 10869/18 and 18 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 Ryabinin 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). Some 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 that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom , 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III). 9.     In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§   91‑96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, § 67, 13   February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia , no. 6110/03, § 81, 3   March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and   5   others, §§ 121-22, 10   April 2018, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention 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 in the light of its findings in Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings (CAO), 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; and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos.   60921/17 and 7202/18, §§   77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. 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 the 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 under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful deprivation of liberty; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention or 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]     10869/18 15/02/2018 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich RYABININ 1987     08/09/2017, 4.10 p.m. 09/09/2017, 11.20 a.m. Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”   3,000     10192/20 03/02/2020 Nikita Andreyevich KUZMICHEV 1991 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi 03/08/2019 03/08/2019 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record 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”   3,000     21162/21 30/03/2021 Ragnar Odinson REYN 1989 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius 21/01/2021 29/01/2021 21/01/2021 29/01/2021 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; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events:   1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court on 11/02/2021, sentence to detention of 3   days;   2) administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court on 16/02/2021, sentence to detention of 7 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     21366/21 06/04/2021 Konstantin Sergeyevich KROPACHEV 1982 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius 28/01/2021, 4   p.m. 29/01/2021, until court hearing 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” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Tver Regional Court, 04/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Tver Regional Court on 04/02/2021, sentence to detention of 7 days 5,000     23556/21 14/04/2021 Artur Nikolayevich BAVRIN 1991 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius 28/01/2021, 8.45 a.m. 29/01/2021, until court hearing Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; 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” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Tver Regional Court, 04/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Tver Regional Court on 04/02/2021, sentence to detention of 10 days 5,000     23791/21 22/04/2021 Anatoliy Valentinovich BUROV 1977 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius 31/01/2021, 1   p.m. 01/02/2021, 4   p.m. Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; 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: Vologda Regional Court, 11/03/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Vologda Regional Court on 11/03/2021, fine of RUB   20,000 4,000     35126/21 25/06/2021 Maksim Anatolyevich BATYKOV 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 27/01/2021, 5.20 p.m. 28/01/2021, 11 a.m., raised on appeal Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; 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: Stavropol Regional Court, 17/03/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 17/03/2021, fine of RUB   20,000 4,000     45005/21 10/08/2021 Ilya Andreyevich LOGVIN 1997 Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow 31/01/2021 01/02/2021, raised on appeal Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances; 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, 10/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 3 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on VKontakte; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/02/2021, sentence to detention of 14 days 5,000     45839/21 01/09/2021 Mikhail Stanislavovich ZAYCHIKOV 1992 Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius 29/01/2021, 2   p.m. 29/01/2021, 7.45 p.m., until court hearing, 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; 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: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18/03/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 18/03/2021, sentence to detention of 7 days 5,000   46684/21 02/09/2021 Mariya Vladimirovna MAKAROVA 1983 Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk 30/01/2021 30/01/2021, until court hearing, 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: 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: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 03/03/2021 and 18/03/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on Telegram, and resistance when arrested; final decisions: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, on 03/03/2021 and 18/03/2021, detention of 3 and 8 days 5,000   47002/21 15/09/2021 Igor Vladimirovich KONOTOPOV 1972 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius 04/02/2021, 4   p.m. 05/02/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; 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: Volgograd Regional Court, 24/03/2021,   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 manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on Facebook; final decision: Volgograd Regional Court on 24/03/2021, fine of RUB 20,000 4,000   47519/21 03/09/2021 Roman Denisovich TREGUBOV 1992 Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Nizhniy Novgorod 28/01/2021, 1   p.m. 29/01/2021, until court hearing, 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; 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: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 04/03/2021,   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 manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on VKontakte; final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 04/03/2021, detention of 5 days 5,000   54093/21 05/10/2021 Sergey Viktorovich RYBAKOV 1986 Tsvetkov Aleksey Viktorovich Vladimir 14/04/2021 15/04/2021 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; 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” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Vladimir Regional Court, 22/04/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2.2 §   3 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 06/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on Youtube; final decision: Vladimir Regional Court, 22/04/2021, detention of 8 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   54481/21 18/10/2021 Igor Lazarevich BARYSHNIKOV 1959 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 21/04/2021, 6.40 p.m. 22/04/2021, 2.00 p.m., until court hearing 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: 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: Kaliningrad Regional Court, 29/04/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 §   2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Facebook; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, on 29/04/2021, sentence to detention of 22 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   2075/22 14/12/2021 Viktor Viktorovich KORCHAGIN 2003 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 22/04/2021 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 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: Ryazan Regional Court, on 17/06/2021,   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 manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Ryazan Regional Court, on 17/06/2021, fine of RUB   10,000   4,000   2960/22 02/12/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich GRIGORYEV 1995 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk 23/01/2021 23/01/2021, raised on appeal Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; 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, 03/06/2021,   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 manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 03/06/2021, sentence to detention of 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   23399/22 15/04/2022 Sergey Viktorovich ZASTOIN 1970     22/07/2021 22/07/2021 Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; 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: Murmansk Regional Court, on 18/10/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 §   2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Murmansk Regional Court, on 18/10/2021, fine of RUB   20,000     4,000   34888/22 07/07/2022 Yelena Andreyevna BELOUSOVA 2001 Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul 27/02/2022 27/02/2022, 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: Altay Regional Court, 23/03/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 §   2 of the CAO for distributing posters with calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation against war on 27/02/2022; final decision: Altay Regional Court, 23/03/2022, fine of RUB 20,000 4,000   41315/22 13/08/2022 Yevdokiya Olegovna FEDOTOVA 2003 Chernova Nataliya Nikolayevna Petrozavodsk 01/03/2022, 2.40 a.m. 02/03/2022, 10.45 a.m., raised on appeal Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; 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: Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic, on 14/04/2022,   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 participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 28/02/2022 against war in Ukraine, published in Telegram; final decision: Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic, on 14/04/2022, fine of RUB   10,0000 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.