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 } .s12AFAEBE { height:137.5pt } Published on 27 March 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no.   1228/21 Kristina Dmitriyevna SAFONOVA against Russia and 17 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 Date Name of the court Other relevant information Other complaints under well-established case-law     1228/21* 29/11/2020 Kristina Dmitriyevna SAFONOVA 1993 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist S.   Prokopyeva, 03/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 22/09/2020 Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, detention as an administrative suspect between 10.55 p.m. (according to the escort record, or at 8.13 p.m. according to the applicant) and 11.40 p.m. on 03/07/2020 “for a timely and correct examination of the case”- no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot and to achieve the goals set by the CAO; 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   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     1729/21* 06/12/2020 Syrga Alekseyevna CHIDARAN 1996 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist S.   Prokopyeva, 03/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 22/09/2020 Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, detention between 8.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. on 03/07/2020 as an administrative suspect “for a timely and correct examination of the case”: no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot and to achieve the goals set by the CAO; 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   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     2034/21* 26/11/2020 Vitaliy Vladimirovich LEVCHENKO 1996 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Protest against police brutality in the wake of the murder of Mr   V.   Taushankov, 02/06/2020, Moscow Article   20.2   §   5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 14/10/2020, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 7.30 p.m. (according to the applicant, or 8.50 p.m. according to the escort record) to 11.50 p.m. (according to the applicant) on 02/06/2020 as administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot and to achieve the goals set by the CAO; administrative offence record compiled on 17/06/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - alternatively to Article 10 issue (see , mutatis mutandis, Tsukanov and Torchinskiy v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 35000/13 and 35010/13, §§ 48-51, 17 April 2018) - arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo demonstrations held on 02/06/2020 by a group of no less than 30 participants     2039/21* 26/11/2020 Timur Vladislavovich AYSIN 1995 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Protest against police brutality in the wake of the murder of Mr   V.   Taushankov, 02/06/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 22/09/2020, Moscow City Court 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   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest at 7.40 p.m. on 02/06/2020, escorting to the police station as an administrative suspect (released allegedly at 11.20 p.m. on that date): no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; the administrative offence record compiled on 15/06/2020   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - alternatively to Article 10 issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Tsukanov and Torchinskiy v.   Russia [Committee], nos.35000/13 and 35010/13, §§ 48-51, 17 April 2018) - arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo demonstrations held on 02/06/2020 by a group of no less than 12 participants     2073/21* 06/12/2020 Anton Konstantinovich OVCHAROV 1992 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist S.   Prokopyeva, 03/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 14/10/2020, Moscow City Court 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   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, detention between 8.19 p.m. and 11.45 p.m. on 03/07/2020 as an administrative suspect “for a timely and correct examination of the case”: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; the administrative offence record was compiled on 10/07/2020 only   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     2129/21* 26/11/2020 Mariya Sergeyevna KOLTSOVA 1998 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Protest against police brutality in the wake of a murder of Mr   V.   Taushankov, 02/06/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 14/10/2020 Moscow City Court 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   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - on 02/06/2020 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 and achieve the objectives set out in the CAO   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - alternatively to Article 10 issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Tsukanov and Torchinskiy v.   Russia [Committee], nos.35000/13 and 35010/13, §§ 48-51, 17 April 2018)- arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo demonstrations held on 02/06/2020 by a group of no less than 30 participants     2152/21* 06/12/2020 Sofya Dmitriyevna YEZHOVA 1988 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist S.   Prokopyeva, 03/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 18/08/2020 Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, detention between 8.20 p.m. (according to the applicant) and 11.55 p.m. on 03/07/2020 as an administrative suspect “for a timely and correct examination of the case”: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; the administrative offence record was compiled on 10/07/2020 only   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     3669/21* 21/12/2020 Gleb Olegovich STRUNNIKOV 1991 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist S.   Prokopyeva, 03/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 16/11/2020, Moscow City Court 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   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, detention between 8.10 p.m. (according to the applicant) on 03/07/2020 and 0.15 a.m. on 04/07/2020 as an administrative suspect "for a timely and correct examination of the case": no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO and beyond the three-hour statutory period; the administrative offence record was compiled only on 13/07/2020   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     3884/21* 21/12/2020 Lusine Mamikovna MINASYAN 1997 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Protest against police brutality in the wake of a murder of Mr   V.   Taushankov, 02/06/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 22/09/2020, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 7.10 p.m. (according to the applicant, or 8.50 p.m. according to the escort record) to 11.30 p.m. on 02/06/2020 as administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; administrative arrest record compiled on 17/06/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - alternatively to Article 10 issue (see, mutatis mutandis , Tsukanov and Torchinskiy v.   Russia [Committee], nos.35000/13 and 35010/13, §§ 48-51, 17 April 2018) - arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo demonstrations held on 02/06/2020 by a group of no less than 30 participants   3972/21* 21/12/2020 Liliya Nikitichna KOPTSOVA 2001 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Protest against police brutality in the wake of a murder of Mr   V.   Taushankov, 02/06/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 26/11/2020, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention from 8.35 p.m. to 11.10 p.m. on 02/06/2020 as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and achieve the objectives set out in the CAO; the administrative offence record compiled on 17/06/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - alternatively to Article 10 issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Tsukanov and Torchinskiy v.   Russia [Committee], nos.35000/13 and 35010/13, §§ 48-50, 17 April 2018) - arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo demonstrations held on 02/06/2020 by a group of no less than 12 participants   4114/21* 21/12/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich YEZHOV 1985 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist S.   Prokopyeva, 03/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000 30/10/2020, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, detention between 8 p.m. on 03/07/2020 and 1.10 a.m. on 04/07/2020 as an administrative suspect “for a timely and correct examination of the case”: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO and beyond the three-hour statutory period; the administrative offence record was compiled on 13/07/2020 only   18544/21* 17/03/2021 Irma Yevgenyevna MALAKHOVA 1990 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations for transgender rights, protest against amendments into the Family Code of Russia 18/07/2020 Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000 30/11/2020, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, detention between 2.15 p.m. and 4.38 p.m. (according to the documents, or 7.38 p.m., according to the applicant) on 18/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot and to achieve the goals set by the CAO   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - alternatively to Article 10 issue (see, mutatis mutandis , Tsukanov and Torchinskiy v.   Russia [Committee], nos.35000/13 and 35010/13, §§ 48-51, 17 April 2018)- arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo pickets on 18/07/2020 in a group of no less than 25 participants   19543/21* 17/03/2021 Inari Olegovich YEFREMOV 1997 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Series of solo demonstrations for transgender rights, protest against amendments into the Family Code of Russia 18/07/2020 Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000, 18/12/2020 Moscow City Court 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   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, detention between 2.15 p.m. and 5.10 p.m. on 18/07/2020 for sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence: no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot and to achieve the goals set out in the CAO   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - alternatively to Article 10 issue (see, mutatis mutandis , Tsukanov and Torchinskiy v.   Russia [Committee], nos.35000/13 and 35010/13, §§ 48-51, 17 April 2018)- arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo pickets on 18/07/2020 in a group of no less than 25 participants   20515/21 27/03/2021 Gleb Kirillovich MATVEYEV 1997 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Protest against arrest and prosecution of journalist M.   Zemtsova, 19/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000 08/02/2021, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting and detention at the police station between 7.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on 19/07/2020 as an administrative suspect: no evidence / assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot and to achieve the goals set by the CAO   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine witnesses – the applicant could not cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   20674/21* 27/03/2021 Mariya Andreyevna STARIKOVA 1988 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist I.   Safronov, 07/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000 16/10/2020, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - applicant arrested at 9.45 p.m. on 07/07/2020, taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence record, released at 1.50 a.m. on 08/07/2020: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO, and beyond the three-hour statutory period. Unjustified length of transfer to a police station in a police van (from 9.45 p.m. on 07/07/2020 to 1.20 a.m. 08/07/2020)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   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 the police officers on whose written reports and explanations the applicant’s conviction was based   21742/21* 09/04/2021 Alina Nikolayevna DIDKOVSKAYA 1991 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist I.   Safronov, 07/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000 10/02/2021, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – the applicant was arrested at 4.25 p.m. on 07/07/2020, taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence record, released at 8 p.m. on that day: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art.   27.3 § 1 CAO, and beyond the three-hour statutory period. Unjustified length of transfer to a police station in a police van (from 4.25 to 6.40 p.m.), overall period of detention exceeding 3   hours   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   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 the police officers on whose written reports and explanations the applicant’s conviction was based   23273/21* 14/04/2021 Anna Aleksandrovna ZIBROVA 1988 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist I.   Safronov, 07/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000 14/10/2020, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - applicant arrested at 3.30 p.m. (according to her, or at 6.40 according to the escort record) on 07/07/2020, taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for “compiling administrative material” (explanations collected), released at 8.56 p.m. on that day: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art.   27.3 § 1 CAO, and beyond the three-hour statutory period; administrative offence record compiled on 23/07/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   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 the police officers on whose written reports and explanations the applicant’s conviction was based   23548/21* 14/04/2021 Kirill Sergeyevich KRIVOSHEYEV 1993 Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk Support of journalist I.   Safronov, 07/07/2020, Moscow article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000 14/10/2020, Moscow City Court rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – the applicant was arrested at 5.40 p.m. (according to the applicant, or at 6.40 according to the escort record) on 07/07/2020, taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for “compiling of administrative material” (explanations collected), released at 9.20 p.m. on that day: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO, and beyond the three-hour statutory period; the administrative offence record compiled on 23/07/2020   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   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 the police officers on whose written reports and explanations the applicant’s conviction was based