CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 décembre 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC278ABC0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3E326BD9 { width:12.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD39FB340 { margin-left:7.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s41E2232C { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; 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 } .s19646158 { width:117.75pt; 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 VINOGRADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 54829/12 and 9 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 December 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vinogradova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 November 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 against solo demonstrators on account of their prosecution in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings for staging solo demonstrations in Stefanovskaya Square and in areas that authorities had considered to be “in the immediate vicinity of court buildings” in Syktyvkar. The 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). Locus Standi in application n o . 57471/12 7.     In 2014 the applicant Mr Ostrovskiy (the first applicant in application no. 57471/12) died. After the applicant’s death, his daughter Yelena Aleksandrovna Ostrovskaya (born in 1993 and residing in Tel-Aviv, Israel) expressed a wish to maintain the case. 8.     The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or close relatives may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). In the present case, the applicant’s daughter submitted documents confirming that she was the applicant’s heir. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Ms Ostrovskaya has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late father. 9.     The Court will therefore continue to deal with the case at her request. For convenience, however, it will continue to refer to Mr Ostrovskiy as the applicant in the present judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 10.     The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention. 11.     In the leading cases of Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§   431-42, 7 February 2017; and Kablis v.   Russia , nos.   48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 50-59, 30 April 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 12.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 14.     The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO), and Annagi Hajibeyli v.   Azerbaijan , no. 2204/11, §§ 71-79, 22 October 2015, concerning hindrance to the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual petition within the meaning of Article 34.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 15.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 12-14 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.          APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 16.     The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Government disputed their claims. 17.     Having regard to its case-law (see, in particular, Ivanov and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, §   13, 15 September 2022; see further, mutatis mutandis , Pleshkov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023, and Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, §   29, 27   November 2018), the nature of the applicants’ complaints, as well as the awards made by the Court to the applicants earlier (see, among others, Mezak and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 20948/13 and 16 Others, 14   December 2023); Zinchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos.   47784/18 and 21 Others, 22 February 2024); Kalinychev and Others v.   Russia [Committee] (nos. 20919/18 and 10 Others, 12 June 2025) ; Malov v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 9837/18 and 15 others, 16 January 2025); Zholobov and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 26521/19 and 7 Others, 18   July 2024); and Muldagaliyeva and Others v. Russia [Committee] (no.   15013/18 and 8   others, 11 July 2024)), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 59778/12, 6320/13, 65507/14, 72147/16, and 58468/17. 18.     As regards the remaining applicants, having had regard to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, mutatis mutandis , Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table, and to dismiss the remainder of their claims for damage. Costs and expenses 19.     The applicants, save for the applicant in application no.   57471/12, made claims for costs and expenses in various amounts. They asked for the said amounts to be paid directly into the bank accounts of their representatives Mr E. Mezak and, where relevant, Mr A. Laptev. The Government considered that the applicants’ claims should be dismissed. 20.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, mutatis mutandis , Dianova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   21286/15 and 4 others, § 95, 10 September 2024, and Shaykhtarov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 47737/10 and 4 Others, §   50, 15   January 2019), and noting, in particular, straightforward and repetitive nature of the applications, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants in applications nos.   54829/12, 59778/12, 6320/13, 65507/14, 69758/14, 70240/14, 2361/15, 72147/16 and 58468/17 jointly,   2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of legal services provided by Mr   E.   Mezak and EUR   1,500 in respect of legal services provided by Mr A.   Laptev. The said awards are to be paid directly into these representatives’ bank accounts. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims under this head. 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; Holds that Ms Yelena Aleksandrovna Ostrovskaya has standing to pursue the case of Mr Ostrovskiy (application no.   57471/12) in the late applicant’s stead; Declares the complaints under Article 10 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; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos.   59778/12, 6320/13, 65507/14, 72147/16, and 58468/17; (b)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in applications nos.   54829/12, 57471/12, 69758/14, 70240/14, and 2361/15, within three months, the following amounts: (i)   the amounts indicated in the appended table to the applicants Ms Sedova (application no.   54829/12) and Mr Ostrovskiy (application no.   57471/12), plus any tax that may be chargeable; (ii)   the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of the remaining applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, to the remaining applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable; (iii)   EUR 3,500 (three thousand and five hundred euros), to the applicants in applications nos. 54829/12, 59778/12, 6320/13, 65507/14, 69758/14, 70240/14, 2361/15, 72147/16 and 58468/17 respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, which is to be paid as follows: EUR   1,500 (one thousand and five hundred euros) of that amount is to be paid directly into the bank account of Mr A.   Laptev, and the remaining EUR   2,000 (two thousand euros) is to be paid directly into the bank account of Mr E. Mezak; (c)   that the award in respect of Mr Aleksandr Borisovich Ostrovskiy should be paid to his heir, Ms Yelena Aleksandrovna Ostrovskaya, (d)   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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 December 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location Date Purpose of the demonstration Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Date Name of the court Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     54829/12 07/08/2012 (3 applicants) Irina Viktorovna VINOGRADOVA 1971   Marina Sergeyevna SEDOVA 1988   Aleksandr Fedorovich SHCHIGOLEV 1961   All applicants: Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou     and the applicants Ms Vinogradova and Ms Sedova: Laptev   Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow   (i) Syktyvkar Protest against the ban on public events in Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar   (all applicants):   Ms Vinogradova: 30/09/2011   Mr Shchigolev: 14/10/2011   Ms Sedova: 04/10/2011                           (ii) Ms Sedova: Syktyvkar 07/12/2016 Support of I.   Dadin (i) Initially (all applicants): Article 20.2§ 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB   500–convictions in all cases subsequently set aside, proceedings discontinued                                         (ii) Ms Sedova (in connection with the event of 07/12/2016): article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 (i) In respect of events of 2011:     Initial convictions : Ms Vinogradova: 30/09/2011 Mr Shchigolev: 14/10/2011 Ms Sedova: 04/10/2011   Convictions set aside by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on: Ms Vinogradova: 13/06/2013 Mr Shchigolev: 11/06/2013 Ms Sedova: 24/05/2013   Claims for compensation rejected as follows: Ms Vinogradova: 16/12/2013 Supreme Court of the Koli Republic (no information on subsequent proceedings)   Mr Shchigolev: 11/07/2014 Supreme Court of Russia   Ms Sedova: 11/07/2014 Supreme Court of Russia     (ii) Ms Sedova: 12/04/2017 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - third applicant Ms Sedova, the second set of proceedings - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/12/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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 - third applicant Ms Sedova in the second set of proceedings,   Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition -   seizure on 26/06/2021 of their representative Mr Mezak’s laptops and hard drive containing documents concerning the above applications within criminal proceedings brought against Mr Mezak in June 2021   EUR 3,500 to Ms   Vinogradova,   EUR 3,500 to Mr Shchigolev,   EUR 4,000 to Ms Sedova       57471/12 09/08/2012 Aleksandr Borisovich OSTROVSKIY 1964 Died in 2014   Heir: Yelena Aleksandrovna OSTROVSKAYA 1993       Irina Petrovna VIGOVSKAYA 1965   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Syktyvkar Protest against the ban on public events in Stefanovskaya Square in Syktyvkar (both applicants)   Mr Ostrovskiy: 05/10/2011           Ms Vigovskaya: 19/10/2011 Mr Ostrovskiy : Initially, article 20.2§ 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 500 -conviction subsequently set aside, proceedings discontinued               Ms   Vigovskaya: article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   1,000 Mr Ostrovskiy: Initial conviction : 09/02/2012 Syktyvkar Town Court,   Decision to set aside the conviction: 19/07/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   Compensation proceedings : claim rejected on 14/04/2014 by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic.   Ms Vigovskaya: Conviction (final): 09/02/2012 Syktyvkar Town Court Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition - seizure on 26/06/2021 of their representative Mr Mezak’s laptops and hard drive containing documents concerning the above applications within criminal proceedings brought against Mr Mezak in June 2021 3,500 to each of the applicants     59778/12 27/08/2012 Semen Alekseyevich TERESHONKOV 1982   Vera Petrovna TERESHONKOVA 1958   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou (both applicants)   and (Ms Tereshonkova) Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow   Syktyvkar Protest against the ban on public events in Stefanovskaya Square, Syktyvkar (both applicants).   Mr Tereshonkov : 25/10/2011   Ms   Tereshonkova : 26/10/2011 Both applicants - initial conviction under article 20.2§ 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 500 –conviction subsequently set aside, proceedings discontinued Initial conviction (final instance): Mr Tereshonkov 27/02/2012 Sytkyvkar Town Court   Ms Tereshonkova   05/04/2012 Sytkyvkar Town Court     Decision to set the conviction aside: Mr Tereshonkov 14/06/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic,   Ms Tereshonkova 13/06/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic,   Claim for compensation rejected in the final instance ( both applicants ): 29/10/2016 Supreme Court of Russia Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition - seizure on 26/06/2021 of their representative Mr Mezak’s laptops and hard drive containing documents concerning the above applications within criminal proceedings brought against Mr Mezak in June 2021 the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     6320/13 09/08/2012 Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 1976   Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow   Syktyvkar 21/09/2011 Protest against the ban on public events in Stefanovskaya Square in Syktyvkar   Initially, article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 500 –conviction subsequently set aside, proceedings discontinued Initial conviction:   09/02/2012 Syktyvkar Town Court   Decision to set the conviction aside: 24/05/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   Claim for compensation rejected in the final instance: 29/01/2016 Supreme Court of Russia. Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition - seizure of the applicant’s laptops and hard drive containing documents concerning the present applications and several other cases listed in this Appendix in which he acted as a representative the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     65507/14 23/09/2014 Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA 1975   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Syktyvkar 01/07/2013 Protest against stray dogs poisoning article 20.2 § 5 of CAO no sanction applied as the administrative proceedings were discontinued by the Syktyvkar Town Court Administrative-offence proceedings discontinued: 13/08/2013 Syktyvkar Town Court   Claim for compensation rejected in the final instance: 10/04/2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 01/07/2013 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence report the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     69758/14 07/10/2014 Andrey Vladimirovich AKSENOVSKIY 1978   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou     Syktyvkar 28/09/2011 Protest against the ban on public events in Stefanovskaya Square in Syktyvkar article 20.2 § 2 of CAO   Administrative-offence proceedings discontinued: 24/07/2013 (final) Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   Claim for compensation rejected in the final instance: 07/04/2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 28/09/2011 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence report 4,000     70240/14 21/10/2014 Erikh Erikhovich VILSON 1988   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou   and   Laptev   Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow   Syktyvkar 11/06/2013 Protest against restrictions of rights of LGBT article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Administrative-offence proceedings discontinued: 16/08/2013 Syktyvkar Town Court   Claim for compensation rejected in the final instance : 21/04/2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 11/06/2013 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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,   Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition - seizure on 26/06/2021 of his representative Mr Mezak’s laptops and hard drive containing documents concerning the above applications within criminal proceedings brought against Mr   Mezak in June 2021 4,000     2361/15 05/11/2014 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO 1984   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou     11/06/2013 Syktyvkar Protest against unlawful seizure of assets of a local centre of drug addicts’ rehabilitation article 20.2 § 5 of CAO Administrative-offence proceedings discontinued: 02/09/2013 Syktyvkar Town Court.   Claim for compensation rejected in the final instance : 05/05/2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 11/06/2013 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence report 4,000     72147/16 18/11/2016 Igor Valentinovich SAZHIN 1963   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou   and   Laptev   Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow   Syktyvkar 10/03/2016 Support of journalists and human rights defenders attacked on 09/03/2016 in Chechnya article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 18/05/2016 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition - seizure on 26/06/2021 of his representative Mr Mezak’s laptops and hard drive containing documents concerning the above applications within criminal proceedings brought against Mr   Mezak in June 2021 the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction   58468/17 01/08/2017 Nina Vasilyevna ANANINA 1984   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou   and   Laptev   Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow   Syktyvkar 22/10/2016 Protest against abolition of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Komi Republic article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 01/02/2017 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 22/10/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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,   Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition- seizure on 26/06/2021 of her representative Mr   Mezak’s laptops and hard drive containing documents concerning the above applications within criminal proceedings brought against Mr   Mezak in June 2021 the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.