CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .sDC9A3D28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } Published on 27 March 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no.   23887/17 Vasiliy Konstantinovich DIMITRIYEV against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 March 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern the complaints raised under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention relating to the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016 and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7   February 2017).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 § 1 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 Name of the court Date Other relevant information Other complaints under well-established case-law     23887/17* 06/03/2017 Vasiliy Konstantinovich DIMITRIYEV 1993 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Moscow 22/03/2016; Moscow, Manezhnaya square, solo picketing holding a banner with a word "Надiя" article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 1,000   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court, 22/09/2016   Moscow City Court, 06/09/2016 rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of the proceedings;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - The applicant was convicted of two administrative offences (participation in a public event and non-compliance with a police order) arising from identical facts (compare, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§   58 ‑ 65, 8 October 2019)     45677/17* 21/06/2017 Anastasiya Sergeyevna ANTONETS 1997   Kirill Sergeyevich BOBRO 1991   Tatyana Vladimirovna GLINBERG 1992   Artem Sergeyevich SAGAYDAKOV 1994   Roman Chabiryevich FATULAYEV 1985 Ilnur Ilgizovich Sharapov Moscow 18/12/2016, Stavropol, Lenin square; solo picketing in support of women rights Ms Antonets: Article   20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000;   Mr Bobro, Ms   Glinberg and Mr   Fatulayev: Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000;   Mr Sagaydakov: Article   20.2 §5 of CAO, 30 hours’ community service Stavropol Regional Court 01/02/2017 for all 5 applicants   distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto       46361/17* 22/06/2017 Ivan Vladimirovich GUSHCHIN 1998   Mikhail Viktorovich KURBATOV 1973 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich LAZARENKO 1978   Olga Andreyevna REZNIKOVA 1983   Sergey Aleksandrovich RUDAMETKIN 1964   Vladimir Mikhaylovich SINITSIN 1952   Yelena Dmitriyevna FILIPPOVA 1962   Igor Vladimirovich MELNIKOV 1963   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 31/10/2016, Moscow, parking lot of the MEGA-Khimki Mall; solo picketing carried out by long-haul drivers against the toll collection system ‘PLATON’ All 8 applicants were charged under Article   19.3 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 1,000 for each applicant Moscow Regional Court, 22/12/2016 the first, second and sixth applicants   Moscow Regional Court, 27/12/2016 the third, fourth and eighth applicants   Moscow Regional Court, 12/11/2017 the fifth and seventh applicants   distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Administrative fine of RUB 1,000 for each of the 8 applicants; Moscow Regional Court, 22/12/2016 (the first, second and sixth applicants); Moscow Regional Court, 27/12/2016 (the third, fourth and eighth applicants); Moscow Regional Court, 12/11/2017 (the fifth and seventh applicants);   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The applicants were arrested on 11/11/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record. All applicants stayed overnight at the police station. No sufficient basis to believe that the detention is necessary and proportionate. The first, second, third, fourth and the sixth applicants were released after their case was heard by the first instance court on 12/11/2016. The fifth and eighth applicants were released on 13/11/2016, 46 hours after their arrest. The complaints were raised in the course of the administrative proceedings.   Specific grievances: Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three ‑ hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121 ‑ 22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).     31435/20* 08/07/2020 Temuuzhin Mandakhovich SAMBUUDAVAAGIYN 1998 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk 31/12/2019, Moscow, solo picket in support of political prisoners Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 18/02/2020 rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the court refused to question at the applicant’s requests the police officers in proceedings regarding the events on both 31/12/2019 and 07/10/2020, the requests were duly reasoned, the court did not give sufficient reasons not to question those witnesses; the testimony of those witnesses was decisive evidence;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - administrative fine of RUB 15,000 - 18/02/2020, Moscow City Court; administrative detention of 10 days, 03/06/2021, Moscow City Court;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escort to the police station on 31/12/2019 were not necessary; no evidence that the record of administrative offence could not be drawn on the spot; the applicant was arrested and detained for over 3   hours, no record of administrative arrest was drawn. Complaint raised before the appeal court. Detention in relation to the event on 07/10/2020 took place between 13/10/2020 and 14/10/2020. The applicant was taken to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record (raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings) (see Korneyeva v. Russia no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018; Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018);   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Demonstration in support of LGBT rights in Russia on 07/10/2020, in Moscow, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, sentenced to 10 days of administrative detention. Final: 03/06/2021, Moscow City Court;     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - With regard to the event on 07/10/2020, the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 28/05/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.     2649/21* 08/12/2020 Dmitriy Anatolyevich NEGODIN 1971     12/03/2020 St   Petersburg, solo picketing against Constitutional reform Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000 St Petersburg City Court 09/06/2020 distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicant on 12/03/2020 and 31/01/2021 was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings against the applicant;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of the administrative proceedings for the applicant’s conviction under Articles 20.2 § 2 and 20.2 § 8 of CAO;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for participation in unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 for administrative detention of 15 days, St Petersburg City Court, 10/02/2021 (final).     3970/21* 21/12/2020 Yelizaveta Dmitriyevna LOSHAK 1997     02/06/2020 Moscow, solo picket raising awareness about the excessive use of force by the police against Vladimir Taushankov   30/05/2020 Moscow, solo picket in support of Ilya Azar Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 for each solo picket Moscow City Court, 26/11/2020               Moscow City Court, 16/10/2020 rotation - event classified as assembly post facto, for each solo picket Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - administrative fine of RUB 10,000, 26/11/2020, Moscow City Court;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – (1) arrest and detention on 02/06/2020 from 8.35 p.m. to 11.10 p.m. in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up the record of administrative offence;   (2) arrest and detention on 30/05/2020 from 3.40 p.m. to 6.50 p.m. in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up the record of administrative offence       19880/21* 17/03/2021 Maksim Ildarovich ALIBAYEV 1991 Ruslan Vladimirovich Sozonov Nizhniy Novgorod 26/07/2020 Nizhniy Novgorod, Bolshaya Pokrovskaya street: a solo picket in support of a candidate to the Town Duma   15/12/2020 a solo picket in support of A. Navalnyy Article 19.3 § 6 of CAO, detention of 3 and 12   days respectively Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 17/09/2020 and 17/02/2021 respectively   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of both sets of the proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention as an administrative suspect on 15/12/2020 and 23/04/2021: Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee] no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017); from 23/04/2021 to 25/04/2021: Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019); the complaint raised on appeal, final - 02/06/2021, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court – the administrative proceedings concerning the applicant’s alleged refusal to comply with the order of a police officer   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate enforcement of administrative arrest ordered by the first-instance court.