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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF KOSTROMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 56957/15 and 16 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 Kostromina 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 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, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §   114, 20 March 2018), the Court finds it appropriate to examine their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (see Nemytov and Others v. Russia , nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, §   93, 27 May 2025, with further references). 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014, Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, and Nemytov and Others , cited above, §§   155-58 and, where relevant, §§ 143-63, 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, having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§   46-59, 1   March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), and having considered the Government’s non-exhaustion objection raised in some of the cases (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, § 42, 30   April 2019), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 13.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in 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); Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§   77-90, 30   April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     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 9-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and to dismiss the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in applications where such claims were submitted. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article   6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see 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; Decides to dismiss 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 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]     56957/15 26/10/2015 Darya Vladimirovna KOSTROMINA 1987   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of political prisoners and protest against President Putin   Moscow   06/11/2014 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 28/04/2015   EUR 3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,   EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to the representatives’ banking account, as indicated by the applicant       4954/16 31/12/2015 Anna Yakovlevna PASTUKHOVA 1952   Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg Event in support of N. Savchenko   Yekaterinburg   11/05/2015 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 01/07/2015   3,500     5206/16 31/12/2015   and   46329/19 22/07/2019 Sergey Arlenovich ZYKOV 1972   Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow   and     Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich Yekaterinburg Event in support of N.   Savchenko   Yekaterinburg   11/05/2015 Rally against the pension reform   Yekaterinburg   09/09/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000           fine of RUB   300,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 01/07/2015         Sverdlovsk Regional Court 22/01/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 11/05/2015 and 13/05/2015 for compiling an offence record and as administrative suspect, pending trial, after such record had been compiled, and (ii) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 24/10/2018 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and subsequently as administrative suspect, pending trial, after such 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 – first set of proceedings 7,000     16159/16 15/03/2016 Khabib Khabibovich POGOSYAN 1988       Event in support of N. Savchenko   Moscow   11/05/2015 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 18/09/2015 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     29234/20 29/06/2020 Anna Andreyevna BULBASOVA 2000   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Picket in support of political prisoners   Moscow   31/12/2019 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   150,000 Moscow City Court 12/03/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 31/12/2019, in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record complied on 13/01/2020 only),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,500     32045/20 15/06/2020 Anastasiya Dmitriyevna REZYUK 2000   Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg Support of the LGBT community of the Chechen Republic   Moscow   11/10/2019     Support of Yu. Tsvetkova     Moscow   27/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   fine of RUB   10,000                   administrative detention of 15 days   Moscow City Court 02/12/2019                 Moscow City Court 01/07/2020   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention on 11/10/2019, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; and (ii) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 27/06/2020 and 29/06/2020 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings 5,000     45224/20 19/09/2020 Denis Dmitriyevich MISHCHENKO 2000   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of I. Azar   Moscow   28/05/2020     Series of solo demonstrations to protest against police brutality   Moscow   02/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000                 fine of RUB   800 Moscow City Court 12/10/2020               Moscow City Court 28/07/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 28/05/2020, in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; and (ii) between 02/06/2020 and 03/06/2020, as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings 4,000     51403/20 03/11/2020 Nadejda Dmitriyevna SHCHETININA 1995   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations to protest against police brutality   Moscow   02/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 21/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention there on 02/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 10/06/2020),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     2680/21 11/12/2020 Yevgeniy Igorevich SVAROVSKIY 1971       Series of solo demonstrations against constitutional amendments   Moscow   29/05/2020 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   200,000 Moscow City Court 28/08/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,500   12145/21 25/02/2021 Ilya Georgiyevich SHABLINSKIY 1962   Maltsev Aleksandr Anatolyevich Moscow   Series of solo demonstrations to support V. Vorontsov   Moscow   30/05/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 24/09/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   16032/21 05/03/2021 Yegor Olegovich ZAKHAROV 1995   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of arrested journalist I. Azar   Moscow   28/05/2020     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                     article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000                     fine of RUB   150,000 Moscow City Court 16/09/2020                   Moscow City Court 16/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention: (i) on 28/05/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; and (ii) between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings     5,500   18903/21 17/03/2021 Artem Nikolayevich SELEKHOV 2002   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations to protest against abusive criminal prosecution   Moscow   22/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 10/12/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to, and detention at the police station between on 22/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   22643/21 09/04/2021 Anna Andreyevna SHCHETNIKOVA 1999   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of activist Yu. Tsvetkova   Moscow   27/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 10/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/06/2020 in excess of three hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 14/07/2020 only),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   23988/21 13/04/2021 Sergey Sergeyevich TSUKASOV 1968   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of I. Azar   Moscow   29/05/2020     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021     Meeting with MPs   Moscow   20/09/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000                 administrative detention of 5 days           administrative detention of 10 days Moscow City Court 14/10/2020               Moscow City Court 24/03/2021           Moscow City Court 29/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention: (i) on 29/05/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record only compiled on 03/07/2020); and (ii) on 19/03/2021, for compiling an offence record in connection with the event of 31/01/2021 and pending trial, for 6 hours,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - the first and the second sets of the proceedings, final judgments of 14/10/2020 and 24/03/2021, Moscow City Court),   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant (i) on19/03/2021 (second set of proceedings concerning the rally of 31/01/2021) and (ii) on 27/09/2021 (third set of proceedings concerning the event of 20/09/2021) was on each of the two occasions executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 6,000   25802/21 29/04/2021 Aleksandra Aleksandrovna KALISTRATOVA 1990   Eysmont Mariya Olegovna Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of I.   Azar   Moscow   01/06/2020     Series of solo demonstrations in support of I.   Azar   Moscow   05/06/2020     Rally against constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020     Anti-war rally   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO               article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 250,000                 fine of RUB   250,000                 fine of RUB   150,000               administrative detention of 15 days Moscow City Court 30/10/2020               Moscow City Court 30/10/2020               Moscow City Court 01/02/2022             Moscow City Court 27/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 01/06/2020 and (ii) 05/06/2020, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; (iii) between 26/01/2021 and 27/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the record of administrative offence under article 20.2-2 of CAO had been compiled; (iv) on 15/07/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record was only compiled on 20/07/2020);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - four sets of proceedings, final judgments of: 30/10/2019 (two judgments), 03/02/2022 and 01/02/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, administrative detention of 10 days for publishing on 22/01/2021 a call for participation in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy (scheduled for 23/01/2021) to the applicant’s Instagram account, final judgment of 03/02/2021 by the Moscow City Court (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019), 11,500   24178/22 09/02/2022 Aleksandr Anatolyevich KRAYEV 1981   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Protest against security services’ brutality   Nizhniy Novgorod   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 11/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.