CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 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 } .sF057D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:6pt } .s45F23943 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:2pt } Published on 27 March 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   21527/18 Stanislav Vitalyevich KOTOV against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 10 March 2022, 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 complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention relating to lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin v.   Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law     21527/18* 19/04/2018 Stanislav Vitalyevich KOTOV 1970       fine of RUB   20,000 11/01/2018, Arkhangelsk Regional Court       26172/18* 21/05/2018 Aleksey Sergeyevich VINOGRADOV 1986       community service of 120 hours 10/05/2018, Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region       28777/18* 05/06/2018 Yashar Ali ogly BADALOV 1963     fine of RUB   30,000; suspension of driving licence for 1   year and 7   months 30/05/2018, Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region       30638/18* 13/06/2018 Aleksandr Sergeyevich POSKREBETYEV 1973   Yevgeniy Valeryevich Kulakov Arkhangelsk fine of RUB   30,000, suspension of driving licence 23/05/2018, Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk       31412/18 25/06/2018 Artem KOGAN 1967     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB   20,000 22/01/2018, 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 detention on 12/06/2017 (raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings: 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); 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).     31427/18 25/06/2018 Aleksandr PALTSEV 1967     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB   15,000 02/02/2018, 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 detention on 12/06/2017 (raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings): 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); 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);   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 and to submit evidence in defence of the applicant’s version of events on an equal footing with the prosecution.     31871/18* 18/06/2018 Oleg Fedorovich KRENEV 1977     fine of RUB   30,000, suspension of driving licence 23/05/2018, Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk       33004/18 09/07/2018 Ivan Vyacheslavovich YEZHOV 1988   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB   10,000 22/03/2018, 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 detention on 12/06/2017 from 5   p.m. to 9.45   p.m. (raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings): 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);   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.     33226/18* 05/07/2018 Oleg Aleksandrovich ZHARIKOV 1984     fine of RUB   30,000, suspension of driving licence 25/06/2018, Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region