CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 26 février 2026

.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 } .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 } .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 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF IVANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 30003/19 and 19 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 February 2026       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ivankin 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 5 February 2026, 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. They 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. Russi a, 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, §§   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, 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); Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4   others, §§   106-225, 26   April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; 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 10-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     As regards applications nos. 10644/20 and 16896/21, 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, for example, Zakharova and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 43102/15 and 24 others, 4 July 2024 and Kobaliya and Others v. Russi a, nos. 39446/16 and 106 others, §   121, 22 October 2024), and noting the failure of the applicant in application no. 10644/20 to produce any proof of payment of the fines imposed on him, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos.   10644/20 and 16896/21. 16.     Further, 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), as well as to awards made by the Court to some of the applicants earlier (see, for example, Zhmyrev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 69927/17 and 12 others, 12   September 2024), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants. 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 finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 10644/20 and 16896/21, (b)   that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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; (c)   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 26 February 2026, 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]     30003/19 18/05/2019 Pavel Nikolayevich IVANKIN 1983   Grachev Anton Sergeyevich Strasskirchen Protest against the constitutional amendments     St Petersburg   15/02/2020       Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO                 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 5 days               administrative detention of 5 days St Petersburg City Court 23/03/2021               St Petersburg City Court 15/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) from 02/11/2018 to 03/11/2018, as administrative suspect; (ii) on 15/02/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; and (iii) from 21/04/2021 to 22/04/2021 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 - all sets of proceedings: (1) conviction under article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO, administrative detention of 10 days, final: St Petersburg City Court, 20/11/2018; (2) conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO in respect of the event of 15/02/2020, administrative detention of 5 days, final: St Petersburg City Court, 23/03/2021; and (3) conviction under article 20.2.2 § 1of the CAO in respect of the rally of 21/04/2021, administrative detention of 5 days, final: St Petersburg City Court, 15/07/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 15//07/2020 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     10644/20 27/04/2021 Vladislav Aleksandrovich BARABANOV 1997   Matasov Aleksey Aleksandrovich Nizhniy Novgorod Support of journalist I. Azar and other activists   Moscow   05/06/2020 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   250,000 Moscow City Court 30/10/2020     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,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to the police station, detention: (i) on 01/06/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence report, and (ii) on 05/06/2020 for compiling an offence report (such report was compiled on 24/06/2020 only),   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Support of I. Azar, 01/06/2020, Moscow, article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB   200,000, final judgment: Moscow City Court, 28/10/2020 the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction       1228/21 29/11/2020 Kristina Dmitriyevna SAFONOVA 1993   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist S. Prokopyeva   Moscow   03/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, detention as an administrative suspect on 03/07/2020 "for a full and due consideration of the case” (the administrative offence record was compiled on 10/07/2020 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     1729/21 06/12/2020 Syrga Alekseyevna CHIDARAN 1996   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist S. Prokopyeva   Moscow   03/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, detention between 8.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. on 03/07/2020 as an administrative suspect "for a full and due consideration of the case"; the administrative offence record was compiled on 10/07/2020 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     2073/21 06/12/2020 Anton Konstantinovich OVCHAROV 1992   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist S. Prokopyeva,   Moscow   03/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/07/2020 "for a full and due consideration of the case" (the administrative offence record was compiled on 10/07/2020 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     2152/21 06/12/2020 Sofya Dmitriyevna YEZHOVA 1988   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist S. Prokopyeva   Moscow   03/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 18/08/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/07/2020 "for a full and due consideration of the case" (the administrative offence record was compiled on 10/07/2020 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     3669/21 21/12/2020 Gleb Olegovich STRUNNIKOV 1991   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist S. Prokopyeva   Moscow   03/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 16/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/07/ "for a full and due consideration of the case" (the administrative offence record was compiled on 13/07/2020 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     4114/21 21/12/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich YEZHOV 1985   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist S. Prokopyeva,   Moscow   03/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 30/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/07/2020 "for a full and due consideration of the case" (the administrative offence record was compiled on 13/07/2020 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     15101/21 24/02/2021 Anastasiya Viktorovna MAKSIMOVA 1995   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of Yu. Tsvetkova   Moscow   27/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 22/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 10/07/2020 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   16896/21 13/03/2021 Sergey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV 1975   Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist I. Azar   Moscow   28/05/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 14/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention 28/05/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing 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 the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction     20148/21 23/03/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich BONDARKOV 1989   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist S. Prokopyeva,   Moscow   03/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 24/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest at 8.30 p.m. on 03/07/2020, escorting to a police station, detention until 2.30 a.m. on 04/07/2020, apparently for compiling an administrative offence record (the administrative offence record complied 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   21742/21 09/04/2021 Alina Nikolayevna DIDKOVSKAYA 1991   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist I. Safronov,   Moscow   07/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 10/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/07/2020 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   23174/21 28/04/2021 Dmitriy Olegovich SIDOROV 1991   Morozova Natalya Yuryevna Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist S. Prokopyeva,   Moscow   03/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 03/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/07/2020 as administrative suspect (the administrative offence record was compiled on 13/07/2020 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   23273/21 14/04/2021 Anna Aleksandrovna ZIBROVA 1988   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist I. Safronov   Moscow   07/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/07/2020 for "compiling administrative material" (the administrative offence record was compiled on 23/07/2020 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   23548/21 14/04/2021 Kirill Sergeyevich KRIVOSHEYEV 1993   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist I. Safronov   Moscow   07/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/07/2020 for "compiling administrative material" (the administrative offence record compiled on 23/07/2020 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   25932/21 27/04/2021 Konstantin Yuryevich FOMIN 1986   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist S. Prokopyeva   Moscow   03/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 06/11/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500   47238/21 10/09/2021 Marina Alekseyevna LITVINOVICH 1974   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Collecting signatures against Constitutional amendments   Moscow   15/07/2020 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   150,000 Moscow City Court 10/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 10 p.m. on 15/07/2020 to 3   a.m. on 16/07/2020 for “drawing up of administrative material" (the administrative offence record only compiled on 23/09/2020),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 1,700   57812/21 18/11/2021 Leonid Mikhaylovich RAZVOZZHAYEV 1973   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of political prisoners     Moscow   14/03/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 03/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to the police station on 14/03/2020 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   59454/21 18/11/2021 Aleksey Pavlovich ANDREYEV 1997   Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of journalist I. Safronov   Moscow   07/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court, 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, transfer to a police station, detention on 07/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record (such record compiled on 28/07/2020 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   30529/22 22/02/2022 Anna Anatolyevna NARINSKAYA 1966   Prosvirkina Kseniya Dmitriyevna Moscow Series of solo demonstrations in support of members of "Novoye velichiye" group   Moscow   16/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 23/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 16/07/2020 for compiling an offence record,   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.