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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } Published on 26 June 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no.   23169/18 Vasiliy Andreyevich VARACHENKOV and Others against Russia and 23 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 11 of the Convention relating to disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     23169/18* 30/04/2018 Vasiliy Andreyevich VARACHENKOV 1995   Aleksandr Maksimovich RYABUSHKIN 1992   Dmitriy Romanovich GRUZDEV 1992   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally against corruption   Moscow 05/11/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2 § 6.1 of CAO Mr   Varachenkov: administrative detention 15   days (art. 19.3 § 1) and fine of RUB   15,000 (art. 20.2. 6 § 1)   Mr Ryabushkin: administrative detention 15 days (art. 19.3 § 1) and fine of RUB   10,000 (art. 20.2. 6 § 1)   Mr Gruzdev: fine of RUB 10,000 (art. 20.2. 6 § 1) Moscow City Court:   08/11/2017 and 28/03/2018 (Mr   Varachenkov),       14/11/2017 and 14/03/2018 (Mr   Ryabushkin),         28/03/2018 (Mr   Gruzdev)   Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: from 1.30 p.m. on 05/11/2017 to 06/11/2017 (Mr   Gruzdev), and to 07/11/2017, the trials on the applicants’ administrative offence cases (Mr   Varachenkov and Mr   Ryabushkin) (see Butkevich v.   Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-23, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 34-36, 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 - in respect of all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no.   926/08, §§   51-84, 20 September 2016)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicants Mr   Varachenkov and Mr   Ryabushkin were convicted twice for participation in the same public event on 05/11/2017: under art.19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention) and under art.20.2. 6 §   1 of CAO (administrative fines) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - in respect of all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: inability to cross-examine in the open court the police officers on whose written statements the applicants’ conviction was based (see Frumkin v. Russia , no. 74568/12, §§ 154-158, ECHR 2016 (extracts))   Art. 6 (3) (c) - free legal assistance - in respect of Mr Varachenkov who was deprived of access to legal aid (detained on 05/11/2017, 1st-instance hearing on 07/11/2017, the court dismissed the request to adjourn the hearing in order to find a counsel, appeal hearing on 08/11/2017, between hearings the applicant was in detention). On appeal hearings, the applicant was not represented either by a lawyer (see Mikhaylova v. Russia , no.   46998/08, §§ 76-102, 19 November 2015)     23799/18* 10/05/2018 Yuriy Viktorovich KAZAKOV 1965 Oleg Aleksandrovich Yelanchik Moscow Opposition rally   Moscow 05/11/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative detention for 15   days   (art. 19.3 §   1), fine of RUB   20,000   (art. 20.2 § 5) Moscow City Court, 10/11/2017 and 30/03/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 4.20 p.m. on 05/11/2017 till the hearing on 07/11/2017 on the administrative offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 both sets of the administrative offence proceedings   (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - 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 (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva , cited above,   §§ 47-65)     24367/18* 12/05/2018 Daniil Valentinovich VORONTSOV 1982 Nadezhda Viktorovna Yermolayeva Moscow Opposition rally   Moscow 05/11/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 15   days (art. 19.3 §   1),   fine of RUB   15,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Moscow City Court, 17/11/2017 and 26/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - in respect of both sets of the administrative offence proceedings: 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 (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva , cited above,   §§ 47-65)     24743/18* 08/05/2018 Maksim Mikhaylovich KOLYBELNIKOV 1985 Irina Aleksandrovna Yatsenko Moscow Opposition rally   Moscow 05/11/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO administrative detention for 15   days (art.   19.3 §   1), fine of RUB   15,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Moscow City Court, 08/11/2017 and 26/03/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 4 p.m. on 05/11/2017 till the hearing on 07/11/2017 on the administrative-offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above,   §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer 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 (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event of 05/11/2017: under art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)     24799/18* 13/05/2018 Andrey Vladimirovich IOSS 1972 Oleg Aleksandrovich Yelanchik Moscow Opposition rally   Moscow 05/11/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO administrative detention for 15   days   (art.   19.3 §   1), fine of RUB   20,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Moscow City Court, 13/11/2017 and 12/04/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 4 p.m. on 05/11/2017 till the hearing on 07/11/2017 in the administrative-offence case; no record of administrative detention (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - in respect of both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: inability to cross-examine in open court police officer 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   (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)     30608/18* 18/06/2018 Alexey Sergeyevich ZELENOV 1993   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Opposition rally   Moscow 12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO fines of RUB   1,000 (art.   19.3 § 1) and RUB   15,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Moscow City Court, 06/03/2018 and 28/03/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 3.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017 to 0.40 a.m. on 13/06/2017; the time indicated in the record of the administrative arrest was at variance with the time argued by the applicant (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - inability to cross-examine in open court a police officer 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 (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (fine of RUB   1,000), and under art. 20.2 §   5 of CAO (fine of RUB 15,000) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)     31415/18* 14/06/2018 Yevgeniy Valikhanovich MUSIN 1980     Rally against Mr   Putin’s re ‑ election as President   St Petersburg 28/01/2018   Rally against constitutional amendments   St Petersburg 16/07/2020 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO         article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 500 (art. 19.3 § 1), fine of RUB   10,000 (art. 20.2 § 5)         administrative detention of 20   days St Petersburg City Court, both decisions of the same date 29/03/2018         St Petersburg City Court 21/07/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 02.00 a.m. on 18/07/2020 to 03.20 p.m. on 19/07/2020 (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36,   all cited above)   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 the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above,   §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - in respect of the proceedings in 2020: inability to cross-examine in open court the police officers on whose 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 (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-18)   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - the local administration refused to authorise the pickets (“cubes”) the applicant planned to organise “within a radius of 15 meters from the cube” on 12-20/08/2017 (daily pickets to inform of initiatives of Mr Navalnyy). The courts rejected the applicant’s complaint (appeal on 18/12/2017, St Petersburg City Court, last final decision: 07/09/2018, Single Judge of the Supreme Court). The cubes were not authorised as the administration considered that their aim “might be interpreted too broadly”, without specification of what types of issues will be raised (political/economic/social/cultural). The form of the event was also questioned by the administration. There was no proposal for an alternative location. The applicant had not held the pickets as a result (see Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14   others, § 359, 7 February 2017)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - In respect of the proceedings related to the public event of 28/01/2018: the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (fine of RUB 500), and under art.   20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine of RUB   10,000) (see Korneyeva ,   cited above, §§ 47-65)     38498/18* 06/08/2018 Anton Olegovich ROZHANSKIY 1986   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Opposition rally   Moscow 12/06/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000 (art. 19.3 § 1), fine of RUB   10,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Moscow City Court, 08/02/2018 and 30/03/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 4.50 p.m. on 12/06/2017 to 2.15 a.m. on 13/06/2017; the time indicated in the record of the administrative arrest was at variance with the time argued by the applicant (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above);   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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - in respect of both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: 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 (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (fine of RUB   1,000), and under art. 20.2 §   5 of CAO (fine of RUB 10,000) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)     47202/18* 19/09/2018 Ilya Mikhaylovich GANTVARG 1999 Maksim Vladimirovich Olenichev St Petersburg Rally against Mr   Putin’s re ‑ election as President   St Petersburg 28/01/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative detention for 10   days (art.19.3 § 1), fine of RUB   15,000 (art.20.2 § 5) St Petersburg City Court, 19/03/2018 and 26/04/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 5.30 p.m. on 12/03/2018 till the hearing on 13/03/2018 in the administrative-offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above,   §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - in respect of both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: 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 (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   47908/18* 09/09/2018 Sergey Andreyevich BOYKO 1983 Andzhelika Viktorovna Chernyavskaya Oktyabrskiy Anticorruption rally   Novosibirsk 30/09/2017 article 20.2 § 5   of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 27/03/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: - from 4.00 p. m. on 21/05/2018 to an unspecified time on 22/05/2018 (the hearings in the applicant’s administrative offence case related to calls to participate in an unauthorised public event on 05/05/2018), - from 2.40 p.m. on 09/09/2018 to the beginning of the hearings in the applicant’s administrative offence case related to calls to participate in an unauthorised public event of the same day (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events: 1) Conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in unauthorised manifestation on 05/05/2018 published in Twitter / 30 days of administrative detention/ final decision: Moscow City Court, 25/05/2018 2) Conviction under article 20.2 §   8 of the CAO for calls to participate in unauthorised manifestation on 09/09/2018 published in social network Vkontakte / 30 days of administrative detention/ final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 12/09/2018, (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos.   60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 74-90, 30 April 2019)   49960/18* 10/10/2018 Anton Yevgenyevich ALYABYEV 1999 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally against re-election of Mr Putin as President   Voronezh 05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days (art. 19.3 § 1),   fine of RUB   10,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Voronezh Regional Court, 21/06/2018 and 05/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 06.10 p.m. on 05/05/2018 till the hearings on the administrative-offence case on 06/05/2018 (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva ,   cited above, §§ 47-65)   49965/18* 10/10/2018 Denis Sergeyevich PYLEV 1987 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally against Mr Putin’s re-election as President   Voronezh 05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days (art. 19.3 § 1), fine of RUB   10,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Voronezh Regional Court, 25/06/2018 and 04/06/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 7.10 p.m. on 05/05/2018 till the hearings on 06/05/2018 in the administrative-offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   50046/18* 10/10/2018 Sergey Gennadyevich KARPENKO 1981 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally against Mr Putin’s re ‑ election as President   Voronezh 05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 2   days (art. 19.3 § 1), fine of RUB   5,000 (art. 20.2 §   5) Voronezh Regional Court, 21/06/2018 and 04/07/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 7.00 p.m. on 05/05/2018 till the hearings on 06/05/2018 on the applicant’s administrative-offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin ,   cited above, §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - in respect of both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-158)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   50537/18* 10/10/2018 Vladislav Dmitriyevich TOLSTOV 1995 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally against Mr Putin’s re ‑ election as President   Voronezh 05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days (art. 19.3 § 1), fine RUB   10,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Voronezh Regional Court (both decisions on the same date) 21/06/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 07.15 p.m. on 05/05/2018 till the hearings on 06/05/2018 on the applicant’s administrative-offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   50820/18* 10/10/2018 Vasiliy Aleksandrovich KOREPANOV 1997 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally against Mr Putin’s re ‑ election as President   St Petersburg 05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 500 (art. 19.3 § 1),   fine of RUB   10,000 (art.   20.2 § 5) St Petersburg City Court (both decisions of the same date) 19/06/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 5.30 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to an unspecified time (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above) 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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under Art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (fine of RUB   500), and under Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine of RUB 10,000) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   50823/18* 10/10/2018 Dmitriy Sergeyevich KANONYKHIN 1997 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally against Mr Putin’s re ‑ election as President   Voronezh 05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days (art. 19.3 § 1),   fine of RUB   10,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Voronezh Regional Court, both decisions of the same date 20/06/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 6.00 p.m. on 05/05/2018 till the hearings on the applicant’s administrative-offence case on 06/05/2018 (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - in respect of both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: impossibility to cross-examine police officers on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   50828/18* 10/10/2018 Yaroslav Yevgenyevich ZUBOTAREV 1998 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally against Mr Putin’s re ‑ election as President   Voronezh 05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days (art. 19.3 § 1),   fine of RUB   10,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) Voronezh Regional Court, both decisions on the same date 15/06/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 6.40 p.m. on 05/05/2018 till the hearings on 06/05/2018 on the applicant’s administrative-offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin ,   cited above, §§ 51-84)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) see Korneyeva ,   cited above, §§ 47-65)   51361/18* 18/10/2018 Mariya Vladimirovna ALEKHINA 1988     Rally in support of Telegram   Moscow 16/04/2018   Rally of four people against police abuse   Moscow 28/11/2020   Rally in commemoration of the First World War (the applicant could not participate because she was apprehended by the police before)   Moscow 22/06/2021 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 19.3 § 1 of CAO community works of 100   hours         fine of RUB   15,000             administrative detention of 15   days Moscow City Court 20/04/2018         Moscow City Court 12/03/2021           Moscow City Court 30/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 02/12/2020 from 6.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - the applicant was under house arrest from 29/01/2021 to 20/09/2021. She claims, notably, that the domestic courts extended her house arrest by using formulaic reasoning and listing the grounds provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure (such as the gravity of the offence, the possibility of the applicant absconding, putting pressure on witnesses, and interfering with the investigation), without linking them to the circumstances of the applicant’s case or verifying whether these grounds remained valid at the advanced stages of the proceedings. The appellate courts reproduced the wording of the first ‑ instance courts’ decisions and dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the house arrest orders (see Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11,27 November 2012)   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the decision of the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow of 23/07/2021 extending the applicant’s house arrest considered by the Moscow City Court on 19/08/2021 (see Idalov v.   Russia ([GC], no.   5826/03, 22   May 2012)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - in respect of the proceedings in 2018 (final judgment - Moscow City Court, 20/04/2018) and 2021 (final judgments - Moscow City Court, 12/03/2021, 30/06/2021) inability to cross-examine police officers who draw up the administrative-offence records and on whose written statements the applicant’s convictions were based (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 23/06/2021 and 08/07/2021 were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 179-191; Martynyuk v. Russia , no.   13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019)   58337/18* 18/11/2018 Ivan Sergeyevich MONIKOV 1984 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally against Mr Putin’s re ‑ election as President   St Petersburg 05/05/2018 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article   20.2   § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 5   days (art. 19.3 § 1), fine of RUB   15,000 (art. 20.2 § 5) St Petersburg City Court (both decisions of the same date) 29/05/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3   hours and without “exceptional circumstances” from 5.50 p.m. on 05/05/2018 till the hearings on 06/05/2018 on the applicant’s administrative-offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine) see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   58871/18* 30/11/2018 Vladimir Yuryevich SHIPITSYN 1969     Rally for peace and cooperation with western countries   St Petersburg 01/05/2018     Rally in support of Crimean Tatars   St Petersburg 18/05/2020 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 900 (art. 19.3 § 1),   fine of RUB   10,000 (art. 20.2 § 5)           community works of 40 hours St Petersburg City Court, 30/05/2018 and 26/06/2018             St Petersburg City Court 22/12/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: - from 12.30 a.m. to 11.45 p.m. on 01/05/2018, - from 12.50 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 08/05/2018, the hearings on the applicant’s administrative-offence case, - from 03.00 p.m. on 01/07/2020 to 02/07/2020, the hearings on the applicant’s administrative-offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   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 (three) sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – in respect of the rally of 18/05/2020 - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statement the conviction was based (see Frumkin , cited above, §§ 154-58)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event of 01/05/2018: under art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (fine of RUB 900), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (fine of RUB   10,000) see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   59755/18 04/12/2018 Aleksandra Aleksandrovna TIMOFEYEVA 1998 Aleksey Vladimirovich Glukhov Novocheboksarsk "Hybrid rally" (march and meeting) in support of A.   Navalnyy   Cheboksary 05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article   19.3   § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000, community works of 20   hours (two separate proceedings under art. 20.2 §   5), and fine of RUB 500 (under art. 19.3 § 1) Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, respectively on 07/06/2018, 05/06/2018 and 14/06/2018 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin ,   cited above, §§ 51-84)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted three times for participating in the same public event: under art. 20.2 § 5 of the CAO (fine of RUB 10,000 and 20   hours of community service), and under art. 19 § 3.1 of the CAO (fine of RUB 500) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   59761/18 04/12/2018 Sergey Vladimirovich YEGOROV 1993 Aleksey Vladimirovich Glukhov Novocheboksarsk "Hybrid rally" (march and meeting) in support of A.   Navalnyy   Cheboksary 05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article   19.3   § 1 of CAO community works of 20   hours   (art.   20.2 § 5), fine of RUB 500 (art. 19.3 § 1) Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 05/06/2018 and 15/06/2018 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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.   19.3 § 1 of CAO (fine), and under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (community works) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   8435/20* 24/01/2020 Yuliya Yevgenyevna CHAPURINA 1991 Igor Nikolayevich Sholokhov Kazan “Hybrid” rally against construction of waste incineration plant   Arkhangelsk 07/04/2019   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO                     two fines of RUB   10,000 each                     Arkhangelsk Regional Court 05/12/2019 and 17/10/2019                 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – three sets of proceedings (final decisions - Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 17/10/2019, 05/12/2019 and 02/06/2022) (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 51-84)   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art. 20.2 § 5 CAO and under art. 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO (both times he was punished by a fine) for one public “hybrid” event (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - solo-picket against the war in Ukraine in Arkhangelsk on 03/04/2022; conviction under Art. 20.3.3 §   1 of CAO, fine of RUB 40,000; final: 02/06/2022, Arkhangelsk Regional Court (see Novikova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-215, 26 April 2016)   11142/21* 01/02/2021 Vitaliy Andreyevich SOKOLOV 1983   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Anti-corruption rally   Moscow 15/07/2020 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court 08/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police office for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.30   p.m. on 15/07/2020 to 5.20 a.m. on 16/07/2020 (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin ,   cited above, §§ 51-84)