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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sF7147D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:5pt } .s12AFAF88 { height:135.5pt } .s5B1E263B { height:26.5pt } Published on 26 June 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   2954/18 Aleksandr Sergeyevich MAZANOV against Russia and 25 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     2954/18* 11/12/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich MAZANOV 1990 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 12/06/2017, 2.30 pm 13/06/2017, 4.30 pm 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, 20/06/2017 (7   days’ administrative arrest) and 11/07/2017 (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 written statements the applicant’s 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 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole, Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO     3031/18* 20/12/2017 Pavel Valeryevich CHUGUNOV 1981 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 12/06/2017, 4.10 p.m. 14/06/2017 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 - final decisions were taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 23/06/2017 (15 days’ administrative detention) and 08/08/2017 (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 written statements the applicant’s 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 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole, Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO             3078/18* 08/12/2017 Anna Vladimirovna TROITSKAYA 1972 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg 12/06/2017 14/06/2017 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, 21/06/2017, fine of RUB 10,000 and 4   days’ administrative arrest; Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 14/06/2017;   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, article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO – St   Petersburg City Court 21/06/2017     3166/18* 18/12/2017 Yegor Vladislavovich ARISTOV 1992 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 12/06/2017, 2.10 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). 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) Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - convicted twice for participation in one public event in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole, Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO;   Art.   6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions were taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 20/06/2017 (7 days’ administrative arrest) and 18/07/2017 (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 written statements the applicant’s conviction was based in both sets of the proceedings, raised on appeal     3179/18* 21/12/2017 Aleksandr Ivanovich LEBEDEV 1997 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg 12/06/2017 2 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). 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) 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) CAO for essentially the same action and sentenced to fines of RUB 500 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 - final decision was taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 24/04/2018 (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 officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based in both sets of the proceedings; raised on appeal     3266/18* 23/12/2017 Yevgeniya Alekseyevna CHIVILEVA 1989 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 27/02/2022 5.15 p.m.   12/06/2017 4.10 p.m. 28/02/2022 3.30 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) 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 - absence of the prosecuting party in the first-instance court in all sets of the proceedings;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under Article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO for participation on 27/02/2022 in a public gathering in St Petersburg in violation of sanitary-epidemiological regulations / administrative detention of 9 days/ final - St Petersburg City Court on 02/03/2022;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 28/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, §§ 179-91; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§   38-42)     3490/18* 18/12/2017 Aleksandr Yuryevich GEDZ 1996 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 12/06/2017 13/06/2017 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). 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 decisions: St Petersburg City Court 20/06/2017 (7 days’ administrative arrest); St Petersburg City Court 18/07/2017 (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 S   Petersburg , Marsovo pole: article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO – St   Petersburg City Court 20/06/2017, St   Petersburg City Court 18/07/2017;   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 convictions were based     3601/18* 18/12/2017 Denis STADNICHUK 1977 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 12/06/2017 14/06/2017 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). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018). Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decisions: St Petersburg City Court 04/07/2017 (fine of RUB   15,000); St   Petersburg City Court 19/06/2017 (15 days’ administrative arrest)   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: article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO – St   Petersburg City Court 19/06/2017, St   Petersburg City Court 04/07/2017;   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 convictions were based     3630/18* 18/12/2017 Svyatoslav Mikhaylovich CHUMAKOV 1991 Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin St Petersburg 12/06/2017 14/06/2017 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). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018). Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decisions: St Petersburg City Court 19/06/2017 (1-day administrative arrest); St Petersburg City Court 06/07/2017 (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 - impossibility to cross ‑ examine police officers on whose statements the applicant’s convictions were based   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: article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO – St   Petersburg City Court 19/06/2017, St   Petersburg City Court 06/07/2017   2976/22 07/12/2021 Revaz SHMERTS 1980 Yekaterina Viktorovna Yefremova Moscow 08/06/2021, 8.05 a.m. (arrest record indicates allegedly incorrect time of arrest - 8.55 p.m.) 08/06/2021, 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). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art. 29.6(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 08/06/2021 – pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court. Courts: Tverskoy District Court; Moscow City Court; Specific defects: fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   3961/22* 03/01/2022 Aleksey Vladimirovich VOLKOV 1972 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin Moscow 21/04/2021 21/04/2021 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), complaint raised on appeal Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision by the Moscow City Court on 27/08/2021, 5 days’ administrative arrest;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate enforcement of the administrative arrest ordered by the first-instance court   5476/22* 12/01/2022 Zhanna Rafinovna INKINA 1982     18/08/2021 23/08/2021 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, §   67, 13 February 2018)     7042/22 11/01/2022 Fedor Aleksandrovich GUBERT 1990 Irina Yuryevna Balysheva Cherepanovo 03/04/2021, 6:35 p.m. 04/04/2021, 4:45 a.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)     7244/22* 16/01/2022 Sergey Ivanovich DEMIDOV 2001 Vladimir Sergeyevich Nemanov Moscow 07/07/2021, 3.01 a.m. 09/07/2021, 12.30 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 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art. 29.6(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 - 16/07/2021, Moscow City Court, administrative detention of 15 days;   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the inability to cross-examine in open court the police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based   10582/22* 16/02/2022 Viktoriya Markovna IVLEVA-YORK 1956   Yuriy Vadimovich SAMODUROV 1951   Karinna Akopovna Moskalenko Strasbourg 20/11/2021, 1.10 p.m. 22/11/2021, 6.30 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 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art. 29.6(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018)     14482/22* 15/02/2022 Rinat Karamatovich SHARIPOV 1951     05/02/2019, 6   p.m. 07/02/2019, 11 a.m. 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). 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). 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, nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - the applicant complains that he received an insufficient compensation in the amount of RUB 30,000 for 41 hours of unlawful detention (final decision - the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 27/12/2021)   18110/22* 15/03/2022 Kristina Igorevna TIMAKOVA 1996 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin Moscow 22/10/2018 22/10/2018 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). 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, nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10   April 2018)     20907/22* 11/04/2022 Kseniya Dmitriyevna KLIMOVA 1997 Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg 19/09/2021 19/09/2021 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - fine of RUB   5,000, final decision on 15/10/2021, Kirov Regional Court   22543/22* 23/03/2022 Yelena Yevgenyevna LOBOVA 1967 Oksana Gennadyevna Olgerdt Moscow 03/02/2021, 12.10 a.m. 04/02/2021, 7   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)     40946/22* 04/08/2022 Anastasiya Pavlovna MASHCHENKO 1995 Irina Vladimirovna Gak Rostov-on-Don 28/02/2022, 8   p.m. 01/03/2022, 10.40 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) 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 Rostov Regional Court on 05/04/2022, 7 days’ administrative arrest;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court (Martynyuk, §§ 37-43; Tsvetkova and others, §§   179-91);   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 question witnesses P. and K. on whose statements her conviction was based   50932/22* 09/10/2022 Kristina Andreyevna SHIBALOVA 1989     24/02/2022, 8.09 p.m. 25/02/2022, 2.35 a.m. 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) 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 09/06/2022, fine of RUB   20,000;   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 confront police officers on whose statement her conviction was based;   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - manifestation against the war in Ukraine, Moscow, Tverskaya, 24/02/2022, Article 20.2 §   5 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/06/2022   55441/22 22/10/2022 Irina Zimilovna VLADIMIRSKAYA 1970     01/03/2022, 9   p.m. 02/03/2022, 3.45 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 23/06/2022, fine of RUB   20,000;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant complained that she had been unable to cross-examine the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 01/03/2022 the applicant held a solo picket and was arrested. She had a sign with the inscription "No war". On 16/03/2022 the applicant was convicted of the administrative offence under Art. 20.5 § 5 of CAO, upheld by the final decision of the Moscow City Court on 23/06/2022   55460/22* 03/11/2022 Pavel Sergeyevich PROSKURYAKOV 2000   Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SHABANOV 1989   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow First applicant, 14/03/2022   Second applicant, 19/04/2022 First applicant, 14/03/2022   Second applicant, 19/04/2022 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 - first applicant: final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 05/07/2022, fine of RUB 30,000; second applicant: final decision taken by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 06/07/2022, fine of RUB   35,000   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicants complain that they were unable to confront police officers on whose statements their convictions were based,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the first applicant complained of an interference with his right to freedom of expression. On 14/03/2022 he was arrested by the police for wearing a yellow-blue pin with a writing “No war”. On 28/03/2022 the applicant was convicted under article   20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO (public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Russian Armed Forces) and fined with RUB   30,000. On 05/07/2022 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision. The second applicant also complained of an interference with his right to freedom of expression. On 19/04/2022 he was arrested by the police for publishing on YouTube several videos against the war in Ukraine. On 25/04/2022 the applicant was convicted under article   20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO (public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Russian Armed Forces) and fined with RUB   35,000. On 06/07/2022 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the decision   55971/22* 12/11/2022 Nikolay Vladimirovich UTEMOV 1992 Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev Nizhniy Novgorod 25/04/2022, 10.50 p.m. 26/04/2022, 1.35 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 taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 12/07/2022, fine of RUB   30,000   57029/22 17/11/2022 Tatyana Konstantinovna BAYKOVA 1976 Oleg Vladimirovich Filatchev Moscow 06/03/2022 06/03/2022 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 - 19/07/2022, Moscow City Court, fine of RUB 20,000   4797/23* 10/01/2023 Anton Borisovich BOCHANOV 1986 Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Velikiy Novgorod 11/09/2022, 6.14 p.m. 11/09/2022, 8.14 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 17/10/2022, Novgorod Regional Court, fine of RUB 40,000;   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant was charged under article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for making anti-war drawings on the ballot paper during elections of 11/09/2022. On 22/09/2022 he was ordered to pay a fine of RUB   40,000 (upheld by the Novgorod Regional Court on 17/10/2022).