CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 septembre 2025

.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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF SAMOYLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 51401/21 and 20 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 September 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Samoylenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 August 2025, 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2   others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17   January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies in connection with their participation in various public events in breach of COVID-19-related restrictions, 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). It further refers to Nemytov and Others v. Russia (nos. 1257/21 and 2   Others, 27 May 2025) in so far as the application by the authorities of the COVID-19-related restrictions to assemblies are concerned. 9.     In the leading cases of Nemytov and Others (cited above), 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.     In particular the Court acknowledges that wide margin of appreciation is allowed to the authorities dealing with the health crisis of COVID-19 magnitude (see Nemytov and Others , cited above, §§ 115-17 and Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain , no. 49363/20, § 81, 17 October 2024). At the time of relevant events, that is April – October 2021, the virus was still actively circulating and various COVID-19 related restrictions were still in place generally pursuing a pressing social need to protect individual and public health. 12.     However, the Court notes that the regime of strict lockdowns was no longer in force, several COVID-19-related restrictions had been altered or eased, indoors and outdoors sports, cultural, entertainment and other events could have been held albeit with some restrictions. Under these circumstances no sufficient justification has been advanced on why regional bans on all forms of protest were maintained, while leisure activities allowed under certain conditions. Furthermore, the judicial decision imposing sanctions on the applicants in the present cases lacked detailed and meaningful proportionality analysis, which could justify why imposition on the sanctions had been necessary. Therefore, the fines and administrative detention orders by the domestic courts had been disproportionate to the aim pursued and the domestic authorities overstepped the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them (see, mutatis mutandis, Nemytov and Others , cited above, §§ 128-30). 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 14.     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. 15.     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 Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10   April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§   34-36, 8   October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO), and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, concerning the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 16.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-15 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     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 it is not necessary to examine separately the remainder of the applications; Holds that these complaints 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 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 September 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   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]     51401/21 08/10/2021 Dariya Nikolayevna SAMOYLENKO 1995   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City 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,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 12.35 a.m. on 01/02/2021 4,000     51782/21 06/10/2021 Nikita Andreyevich RUNDYGIN 1999   Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 06/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.24 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 2.39 a.m. on 01/02/2021 4,000     51883/21 23/09/2021 Aleksandra Aleksandrovna OZEROVA 1989   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 St Petersburg City Court 30/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 7 p.m. on 01/02/2021 4,000     51886/21 23/09/2021 Alla Pavlovna MENSHIKOVA 1997   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 25/03/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 1.25 a.m. on 01/02/2021 4,000     52576/21 13/10/2021 Oleg Lvovich KOKH 1980   Nepovinnova Yana Andreyevna St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   02/02/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 5 days St Petersburg City Court 22/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 1.30 p.m. on 03/02/2021 5,000     53526/21 14/10/2021 Lidiya Ivanovna MELNIKOVA 2002   Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 15/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021 4,000     54376/21 21/10/2021 Iliyas Kazimovich CHERKASOV 1999   Karagodina Veronika Yuryevna St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   23/01/2021 article 8-6-1 § 2 of the Law of St Petersburg on administrative offences fine of RUB   4,000 Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg 01/07/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report 4,000     54492/21 18/10/2021 Nikolay Konstantinovich GAVRILOV 1992   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 16/09/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.45 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 5.30 a.m. on 22/04/2021 4,000     54502/21 18/10/2021 Konstantin Vladimirovich GRIGORYEV 1989   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalny"   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 06/07/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8.20 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 9.30 p.m. on 22/04/2021 4,000   54740/21 18/10/2021 Arseniy Denisovich DMITRIYEV 1999   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   02/02/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 22/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.21 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 6.30 p.m. on 03/02/2021 4,000   54767/21 25/10/2021 Rpman Yuryevich TYUTYUNNIK 1998   Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City 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,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.24 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 2.40 a.m. on 01/02/2021 4,000   55131/21 15/10/2021 Aleksandra Nikolayevna MAKSIMOVA 1985   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 22/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 9.08 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 1.00 p.m. on 01/02/2021 4,000   55425/21 26/10/2021 Karolina Yuryevna KELKEL 2000   Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention of 5 days St Petersburg City Court 26/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 21/04/2021 until 22/04/2021,   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   61491/21 30/11/2021 Anastasiya Mikhaylovna ROMANOVA 1999   Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 01/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report     4,000   61741/21 02/12/2021 Andrey Myintovich MYINT 1980   Karagodina Veronika Yuryevna St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 08/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   2041/22 22/12/2021 Aleksey Antonovich ISTOMIN 2001   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 15/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 21/04/2021 until 22/04/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   2084/22 10/12/2021 Aleksandra Aleksandrovna KODIY 2001   Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   02/02/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 10/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 02/02/2021 until 03/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   2854/22 09/12/2021 Aleksey Yuryevich FEFELOV 1977   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 10/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   17430/22 05/03/2022 Stanislav Yuryevich PINAYEVSKIY 1990       Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 07/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   18039/22 25/03/2022 Ivan Igorevich PETROV 1992   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 28/09/2021   3,500   20880/22 21/01/2022 Stepan Yuryevich SALPANOV 1989       Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Samara   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 21/10/2021   3,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.