CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 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 } .s16C0E089 { height:78.85pt } .sF1D24627 { height:64.7pt } .sF7147D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:5pt } .s1C7FEFCA { height:100.15pt } .s4DED3943 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } Published on 26 June 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   83654/17 Irina Grigoryevna SAVELYEVA and Aleksandr Nikolayevich SAVELYEV against Russia and 19 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 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 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no.   6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law     83654/17 30/11/2017 Irina Grigoryevna SAVELYEVA 1955   Aleksandr Nikolayevich SAVELYEV 1955 Deceased in 2018   Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg 12/06/2017, 2   p.m. 12/06/2017, 8.30 p.m. (first applicant) and 9.20 pm (second applicant) Applicants 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 - proceedings under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021, fine of RUB 10,000; and proceedings under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO; final – St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021; fine RUB 500   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 officer on whose statements the applicants’ conviction was based   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - convicted twice for participation in one public event – 1) proceedings under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021, fine of RUB 10,000; and 2) proceedings under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO; final - St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021; fine RUB 500     3353/18* 18/12/2017 Maksim Olegovich GOLIKOV 1982 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 12/06/2017, 2.10 p.m. 13/06/2017,   4.30 p.m. 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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 04/07/2017 (fine of RUB 10,000) and on 20/06/2017 (6 days’ administrative arrest)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - The applicant complains that he was punished twice for essentially the same actions under Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention for 6   days), Art.   20.2 § 5 of CAO (administrative fine of RUB   10,000)   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 officer on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based (in respect of the proceedings under Art.   20.2 (5) CAO), raised on appeal         3643/18* 27/12/2017 Irina Ilgizovna GILMANOVA 1996 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 12/06/2017 13/06/2017 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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – St Petersburg City Court, 22/08/2017; Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, 13/06/2017, fine of RUB 5,000   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 13/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO – St   Petersburg City Court 22/08/2017   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - impossibility to cross-examine police officers on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based (in respect of the proceedings which ended with an order to pay an administrative fine of RUB 5,000)     3698/18* 18/12/2017 German Zalkovich BERSON 1948 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 12/06/2017 13/06/2017 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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 13/06/2017; St   Petersburg City Court, 25/07/2017, fine of RUB 10,000   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO – St   Petersburg City Court 25/07/2017   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - impossibility to cross-examine police officers on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based     12066/18 03/03/2018 Aleksey Konstantinovich TSAREV 1989   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 26/03/2017, 3.40 p.m. 27/03/2017,   3.30 p.m. 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/09/2017, ordered to pay a fine of RUB   10,000   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - failure to obtain attendance of the witnesses on the applicant’s behalf (police officers who arrested the applicant and prepared the relevant reports     22836/18* 08/05/2018 German Yevgenyevich FLEGONTOV 1997   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 12/06/2017, 6.10 p.m. 13/06/2017,   10 a.m. 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/04/2018, ordered to pay a fine of RUB   10,000     23662/18* 09/05/2018 Aleksandr Viktorovich TETERYA 1966 Irina Aleksandrovna Yatsenko Moscow 02/11/2017, 10.45 p.m. 03/11/2017, 2 p.m. 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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/11/2017, sentenced to 14 days’ administrative detention   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to examine in open court the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s convictions was based; raised on appeal     24195/18* 08/05/2018 Artem Gennadyevich IVANKIN 1982 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow 05/11/2017 07/11/2017 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/11/2017, sentenced to 14 days’ administrative detention   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 07/11/2017 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others, §§ 179-191; Martynyuk v.   Russia, §§ 38-42)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to examine the police officers on whose statements the conviction was based     24457/18 14/05/2018 Egor Pavlovich NEKHOROSHEV 1990   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 05/11/2017, 1.30 p.m. 06/11/2017, 3   p.m. 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken on 26/03/2018; convicted under Art. 19.3 of the CAO   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to examine the police officers on whose statements the conviction was based   7642/22* 13/01/2022 Natalya Aleksandrovna BURMAKINA 1983 Yuliya Yevgenyevna Fedotova Yekaterinburg 25/11/2021, 10.30 p.m. 28/11/2021, 7.10 p.m. Unjustified length of detention with a view to transferring the applicant to an investigator (see Fortalnov and Others v.   Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 83, 26 June 2018). Detention without a court order beyond the 48 ‑ hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v.   Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 82, 26 June 2018)     7872/22 27/01/2022 Sergey Aleksandrovich NIKOLAYCHENKO 1978 Oksana Preobrazhenskaya Strasbourg 28/07/2021, 12 p.m. 28/07/2021, 9.20 p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018)     8399/22* 10/01/2022 Rustem Galimullovich GAYFULLIN 1986 Rushan Rafisovich Kabirov Kazan 10/08/2021 11/08/2021 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - administrative detention of 3 days, 08/09/2021, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 11/08/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, §§ 179-191; Martynyuk v.   Russia, §§ 38-42)   46147/22 15/09/2022 Mikhail Nikolayevich PIDENKO 1986 Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg 15/04/2022 16/04/2022, until the court hearing 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of two sets of administrative proceedings, final decisions taken by the Stavropol Regional Court on 18/05/2022 (sentenced to 2 days’ administrative detention) and on 15/06/2022 (ordered to pay an administrative fine of RUB   40,000)   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - the applicant claims that despite his requests, the court failed to call to court the police officers that arrested him and drew up an administrative offence record, thereby depriving the applicant of the opportunity to cross-examine the individuals providing key evidence for his conviction   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his sentence (administrative arrest) before the appeal judgment was delivered (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§   179-191; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§   38-42)   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - between 28/02/2022 and 10/03/2022 the applicant continuously posted various photos and videos on his page in Instagram calling upon others not to trust the official version of the events in Ukraine. On 15/04/2022 and 18/04/2022 administrative offence records under Art. 20.3.3 of the CAO were drawn up in respect of the applicant. On 16/04/2022 and 04/05/2022 the Georgiyevsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region convicted the applicant thereunder and sentenced him to a 2 days’ administrative detention and a fine of RUB 40,000 respectively. Upheld by the Stavropol Regional Court on 18/05/2022 and 15/06/2022.   54402/22 03/11/2022 Anastasiya Andreyevna MINASOVA 1994 Narek Gurgenovich Akopyan Vidnoye 03/03/2022, 9   p.m. 04/03/2022, 1.54 a.m. 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 05/09/2022, fine of RUB   15,000   54409/22* 19/10/2022 Anton Viktorovich DYATLOV 1997     02/04/2022, 12.06 p.m. 02/04/2022, 5.29 p.m. 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Omsk Regional Court, 21/06/2022, fine of RUB   50,000   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls for participations in the demonstration in Omsk on 02/04/2022 against the war in Ukraine, conviction under Art.   20.3.3 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   50,000, 21/06/2022, Omsk Regional Court   286/23* 25/11/2022 Valeriya Sergeyevna PANFEROVA 1998 Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev Nizhniy Novgorod 06/05/2022, 1   p.m. 06/05/2022, 6   p.m. 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 28/07/2022, fine of RUB   30,000   843/23* 29/11/2022 Aleksey Yuryevich KHOLODAREV 1976 Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg 10/08/2022, 12.36 p.m. 10/08/2022 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. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - (1)   On 24/02/2022 the applicant published a post against President Putin on Facebook. On 01/07/2022 he was convicted under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO (public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Russian Armed Forces) and ordered to pay a fine of RUB 40,000. On 08/09/2022 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision. (2) On 05/03/2017 the applicant published in Internet (Vkontakte) a video allegedly containing symbols of an extremist organisation de-registered in Russia (movement of Navalnyy Headquarters). On 10/08/2022 the applicant was convicted under Art. 20.3 § 1 of the CAO and sentenced to 14 days’ administrative detention.   On 15/08/2022 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision. (3) Conviction under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for publishing anti-war posts on Facebook on 26/04/2022, fine of RUB 40,000, final decision - Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 01/12/2022   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 all sets of proceedings   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§   179-191; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§ 38-42) the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 10/08/2022 was executed immediately   1070/23* 19/12/2022 Roman Dmitriyevich SOLOVYEV 2002 Polina Artemovna Petrova Moscow 27/02/2022, 4.35 p.m. 28/02/2022, 1.20 a.m. 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/08/2022, fine of RUB   15,000   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, including video recordings, in defence of the applicant’s version of events on an equal footing with the prosecution   1891/23* 08/12/2022 Anna Aleksandrovna BOYKOVA 1982 Maksim Vitalyevich Simonov Voskresenskiy 27/02/2022, 4.30 p.m. 28/02/2022, 1   a.m. 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/08/2022, fine of RUB   10,000   2626/23* 08/12/2022 Vladimir Aleksandrovich FATEYEV 1978 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow 17/06/2022 17/06/2022 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Tambov Regional Court, 08/08/2022, fine of RUB 50,000   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 22/04/2022 the applicant published a post in support of Ukraine (picture of St Nicolas dressed in the uniform of the Ukrainian army), convicted on 23/06/2022 under Art. 20.3.3. (1) of CAO, fine of RUB 50,000. Final: 08/08/2022, Tambov Regional Court