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 } Published on 27 March 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no.   52077/22 Sofya Igorevna NAZAREDSKAYA against Russia and 24 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 11 of the Convention relating to the disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS 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 charges Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     52077/22* 21/10/2022 Sofya Igorevna NAZAREDSKAYA 2000     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   26/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 21/06/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant complained of the inability to cross-examine in the first-instance trial two police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based.     52436/22 21/10/2022 Sergey Georgiyevich KOLESNIKOV 1970     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 06/03/2022 the applicant 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). The applicant also complained that he remained in detention for more than three hours after the offence record was drawn up without any justification ( Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018): he was detained at 4.25 p.m. and released at 11.50   p.m.;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair criminal proceedings - the applicant complained of the impossibility to adduce evidence in his defence (video recordings, photos) and to cross-examine police officers on whose statements his conviction was based.     54282/22* 02/11/2022 Kori MALTS 2002     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 24/02/2022 the applicant 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: 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): he was detained from 9.00 p.m. 24/02/2022 to 6.00 a.m. 25/02/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     54431/22* 29/10/2022 Anastasiya Stanislavovna YAKUBA 2001     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 06/03/2022 the applicant 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);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     56096/22* 10/11/2022 Vladimir Yevgenyevich KONSHIN 1981     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 25/07/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - the applicant was arrested at 4.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022, escorted to the police station and detained there until 1.35 a.m. on 28/02/2022, that is more than three hours after the offence record was drawn up without any justification ( Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     56112/22* 20/11/2022 Nadezhda Viktorovna UTKINA 1986 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 24/02/2022 the applicant 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 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): arrested at 7.40 p.m. on 24/02/2022 and released at 2 a.m. on 25/02/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     56387/22 21/11/2022 Daniil Sergeyevich BOROZDIN 1996     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 27/02/2022 at 6.05 p.m. the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect and released at 12.30 a.m. on 28/02/2022: 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);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     56818/22 09/11/2022 Arina Igorevna MAKAROVA 1999     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – the applicant was taken to the police station on 06/03/2022 at 4 p.m. 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);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     56891/22* 08/12/2022 Igor Gennadyevich SYCHEV 2000 Timofey Borisovich Ushakov Kokoshkino Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 15/08/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair criminal proceedings - the applicant complained of various deficiencies in the administrative offence proceedings (denial of domestic courts to adduce evidence supporting his version of events, impossibility to cross-examine police officers on whose statements the conviction was based).   56904/22 19/11/2022 Mariya Yulyevna VERTKINA 1996 Anastasiya Vladimirovna Pilipenko St Petersburg Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   St. Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 St. Petersburg City Court 13/09/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – the applicant was taken to the police station at 6.15 p.m. on 27/02/2022 as an administrative suspect and released at 10 p.m.: 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). The applicant also complained that she remained in detention more than three hours after the offence record was drawn up without any justification ( Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.   56907/22* 19/11/2022 Angelina Sergeyevna BULONAKOVA 1995 Anastasiya Vladimirovna Pilipenko St Petersburg Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 19/07/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect ( 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). The applicant also complained that she remained in detention more than three hours after the offence record was drawn up without any justification ( Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018): she was detained at 6.15 p.m. on 27/02/2022 and released at 12.40 a.m. on 28/02/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.   56909/22 01/12/2022 Maksim Glebovich MELENCHENKO 2001 Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   03/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 03/08/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 03/03/2022 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect ( 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).   56917/22* 18/11/2022 Varvara Andreyevna POPOVA 2001     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   03/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/07/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 03/03/2022 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect ( 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);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     56927/22 28/11/2022 Ivan Nikolayevich LOZHKIN 1985     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - the applicant was taken to the police station at 3.35 p.m. on 06/03/2022 as an administrative suspect and released at 9.40 p.m. on the same day: 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). The applicant also complained that he remained in detention for more than three hours after the offence record was drawn up without any justification ( Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.   56928/22* 25/11/2022 Polina Aleksandrovna LEMESHEVA 1994 Olga Vladimirovna Timireva Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 25/08/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016).   57020/22 13/11/2022 Sergey Igorevich KRAUKLISH 1969 Mariya Sergeyevna Zyryanova St Petersburg Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 14/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 06/03/2022 at 2.50 p.m. the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect and released at 9.15 p.m. on the same day: 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);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant complained of the inability to cross-examine in the first-instance trial two police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based. He explained that their testimony was decisive for the outcome of the case.   57033/22* 15/11/2022 Anna Mikhaylovna MUKHOYAN 1999     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 15/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 06/03/2022 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect ( 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);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant complained that she had been unable to cross-examine during the court proceedings the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based. She duly provided the officers’ names in her motions to domestic courts and explained why it was important to call and examine them.   57339/22* 19/11/2022 Ivan Dmitriyevich MITRAKOV 1993     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   03/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 19/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 03/03/2022 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect ( 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)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016).   57396/22* 17/11/2022 Olga Dmitriyevna SLUZHBINA 2002     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 06/03/2022 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect ( 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);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant complained that she had been unable to cross-examine during the court proceedings the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based. She duly provided the officers’ names in her motions to the domestic courts and explained why it was important to call and examine them.   57514/22* 17/11/2022 Galina Vladimirovna BOBROVA 1968     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 25/07/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant complained that she had been unable to cross-examine during the court proceedings the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based. In her motions to the domestic courts, she duly explained why it was important to call and examine them;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 06/03/2022 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect ( 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).   57517/22 08/12/2022 Tatyana Valeryevna DAVIDIS 1969     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 15/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – the applicant 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). The applicant also complained that she remained in detention more than three hours after the offence record was drawn up without any justification ( Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018): she was detained at 4.50 p.m. on 27/02/2022 and released at 11 p.m. on the same day;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016).   57546/22* 29/11/2022 Nataliya Aleksandrovna LAUVE 2000     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention and detention – on 06/03/2022 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect ( 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).   57583/22 19/11/2022 Mikhail Mikhaylovich STARIKOV 1983     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   03/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 03/03/2022 the applicant 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 beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russi a, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018): the applicant was arrested at 7.40   p.m. on 03/03/2022 and released at 1.30 a.m. on 04/03/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based and to request evidence, including video recordings, in defence of the applicant’s version of events on an equal footing with the prosecution.   57714/22* 08/12/2022 Yelena Aleksandrovna DOBRIKOVA 1992 Timofey Borisovich Ushakov Kokoshkino Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 17/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - the applicant 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);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair criminal proceedings - courts’ failure to request video recording of the event from the police and the impossibility to cross-examine police officers who had witness status in the proceedings and on whose statements the conviction was based.   57852/22* 21/11/2022 Yevgeniy Yuryevich SIMONOV 1977     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20   September 2016);   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – on 06/03/2022 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect ( 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);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant complained that she had been unable to cross-examine during the court proceedings the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based.