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 } .s1601B0A7 { height:14.95pt } .s11416D70 { height:43.25pt } .sCD4A263B { height:29.4pt } Published on 26 June 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   3345/18 Daniil Igorevich OVCHAROV against Russia and 17 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     3345/18* 26/12/2017 Daniil Igorevich OVCHAROV 1998 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg 12/06/2017 2.30 p.m. 13/06/2017 unspecified time 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) Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was charged under Art. 19.3 (1),   Art. 20.2 (5) of CAO for essentially the same action and sentenced to fines of RUB 1,000 and 10,000 respectively,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of the proceedings final decisions for the two sets of the proceedings – St Petersburg City Court, 28/06/2017.     28457/18* 30/05/2018 Liparit Genrikovich AREVSHATYAN 1993   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 12/06/2017, 2.30 p.m. 12/06/2017, 11.40 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 - Moscow City Court, 20/03/2018, fine of RUB 20,000.         29504/18 13/06/2018 Artem Dmitriyevich PEREPELENKO 1994   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 12/06/2017, 3.50 p.m. 12/06/2017, 11.50 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 on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 18/01/2018. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine of RUB 15,000;   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair proceedings in view of the failure to obtain attendance of and cross-examine the witnesses (police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based).     34424/18 18/07/2018 Ivan Aleksandrovich ZENIN 1988   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 12/06/2017, 3.40 p.m. 12/06/2017, 10.00 p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.   7077/06 and 12   others, §§ 76-79, 26   June 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 30/01/2018, 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 - The applicant claims that despite his requests, the court failed to summon police officers K. and T. who arrested him and drew up an administrative offence record, while their statements were accepted as evidence against him.     38160/18* 04/08/2018 Rayudin Aydakadiyevich YUSUFOV 1967 Dagir Ziyavdinovich Khasavov Moscow 05/02/2018, 5.30 a.m. 05/02/2018, 6.03 p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.   7077/06 and 12   others, §§ 76-79, 26   June 2018)       58382/18* 29/11/2018 Aleksey Pavlovich PROVOROV 1973 Tatyana Aleksandrovna Tretyak Gelendzhik 20/07/2018 01/09/2018 Authorities’ failure to specify the period of pre-trial detention (see Logvinenko v. Russia, no.   44511/04, §§   35-39, 17 June 2010) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 25/01/2013 to 25/11/2017 (conviction by trial court) and from 20/07/2017 – pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court (the latest appeal decision was taken by the Supreme Court of the Adygeya Republic on 27/09/2018-) Defects: failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - In respect of a violation of Article 5 § 1.     7057/19 17/01/2019 Valentina Vyacheslavovna MANZHIYEVA 1960 Sergey Vyacheslavovich Andropov Moscow 18/07/2018 20/07/2018 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §   67, 13 February 2018)       29250/19 21/05/2019 Roman Vyacheslavovich FEDOROV 1987     04/11/2018, 3   p.m. 06/11/2018, time unspecified 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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art.   27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, 10 April 2018). 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 - 10/12/2018, Moscow City Court, fine of RUB 150,000     59858/19* 16/12/2019 Lyudmila Viktorovna BESHTOYEVA 1963 Aleksey Viktorovich Avanesyan Yekaterinburg 21/11/2019 10/12/2019 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §   67, 13 February 2018) Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - The applicant fainted during the pronouncement of her conviction by the trial judge. The judge continued to pronounce the conviction. The appeal court dismissed the applicant’s complaint noting that she had been unable to hear the operative part of the judgment concerning the sentencing   62851/19* 25/11/2019 Konstantin Dmitriyevich KOLUZAKOV 1999 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Protasyuk Nizhniy Novgorod 29/05/2019, 2   p.m. 30/05/2019, 6   p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.   7077/06 and 12   others, §§ 76-79, 26   June 2018)     4441/20* 08/12/2019 Ilgiz Railyevich YAKHIN 1992     27/06/2019 04/07/2019 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §   67, 13 February 2018)     5987/20* 19/12/2019 Nail Salavatovich GAZIZOV 1992     27/06/2019 04/07/2019 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §   67, 13 February 2018)     19616/20 16/03/2020 Mikhail Alekseyevich MOROZOV 1969     02/09/2019, 11 p.m. 03/09/2019, 9   p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.   7077/06 and 12   others, §§ 76-79, 26   June 2018)     22273/20* 12/05/2020 Sergey Nikolayevich CHERNYSHEV 1975 Dmitriy Petrovich Chekulayev Moscow 18/11/2019, 7 a.m. 18/11/2019, 8.40 p.m. Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.   7077/06 and 12   others, §§ 76-79, 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)     22292/20* 12/05/2020 Aleksandr Viktorovich MISHENIN 1984     14/01/2020 15/01/2020 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §   67, 13 February 2018)     22834/20* 11/04/2020 Aleksandr Vladimirovich POMAZAN 1982 Vladimir Borisovich Semkin Tyumen 03/11/2019, 1   a.m. 03/11/2019, 12.38 p.m. 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 for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 §   3 CAO) (see Timishev v.   Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28   November 2017)       36705/20* 02/08/2020 Anna Dmitriyevna KHARITONOVA 1982 Ashot Aleksandrovich Andreyev Syktyvkar 18/12/2019, 12 a.m. 19/12/2019 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: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art.   27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no.   47598/08, § 21, 28   November 2017)     4593/21* 28/12/2020 Vladimir Vladimirovich ZUBKOV 1971 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Knyazkov Yaroslavl 29/06/2020 03/07/2020 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §   67, 13 February 2018).