CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 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 24 April 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no.   75530/17 Ruslan Yakubovich ABLYAKIMOV against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 30 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 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     75530/17* 19/10/2017 Ruslan Yakubovich ABLYAKIMOV 1990 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow administrative detention of 7 days 20/04/2017, Moscow City Court Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect of appeal against sentence of detention ( Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019)     83056/17* 07/12/2017 Yelena Yevgenyevna CHERNETSKAYA 1974 Ilyas Salimovich Vakhitov Vniissok administrative fine of RUB 10,000 14/06/2017, Moscow City Court       44769/18 11/09/2018 Andrey Viktorovich OREL 1977 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow administrative detention of 15 days 14/03/2018, Moscow City Court Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect of appeal against sentence of detention ( Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019)     44847/18* 08/09/2018 Oleg Yuryevich MAZIN 1969 Aleksey Borisovich Vologin Volsk suspension of driving licence for 1 year and 7 months, administrative fine of RUB 30,000 06/09/2018, Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region       45836/18* 19/09/2018 Anzhela Valeryevna DYATLOVA 1980     administrative fine of RUB 30,000,   suspension of driving licence for 1 year and 6 months 22/03/2018, Orenburgskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region       49737/18* 13/10/2018 Dmitriy Vladimirovich ISAYEV 1979 Aleksey Borisovich Vologin Volsk administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of driving licence for 1 year and 8 months 25/09/2018, Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court       57712/18* 12/11/2018 Vasiliy Alekseyevich ZRYUYEV 1997 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius administrative fine of RUB 10,000 14/06/2018, Voronezh Regional Court       56128/22* 19/11/2022 Olga Viktorovna ANDREYEVA 1979     administrative fine of RUB 10,000 19/07/2022, Moscow City Court Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross ‑ examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     325/23 02/12/2022 Rim Faridovich GUBAYEV 1993 Oleg Vladimirovich Filatchev Moscow administrative fine of RUB 20,000 03/08/2022, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – from 27/02/2022, 7.40 p.m. to 28/02/2022, 01.00 a.m., 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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see 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)   906/23* 01/11/2022 Konstantin Vladimirovich SIDELNIKOV 2000 Arkadiy Vitalyevich Shindyapin Moscow administrative fine of RUB 20,000 15/08/2022, Moscow City Court Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross ‑ examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based