CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 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 } .s4DED3943 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } Published on 24 July 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   4877/18 Artem Gennadyevich MYACHIN against Russia and 15 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 29 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     4877/18* 18/12/2017 Artem Gennadyevich MYACHIN 1988     12/06/2017 13/06/2017 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019). Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decisions taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 20/06/2017 and 25/07/2017, 10 day’s administrative detention and fine of RUB 16,000;     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO – St Petersburg City Court 20/06/2017 and 25/07/2017;     Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - impossibility to cross-examine police officers on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     11400/19* 15/02/2019 Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV 1988     24/05/2018, 2.20 p.m.;   27/07/2019, 11.30 a.m.   25/05/2018, no exact time;   27/07/2019, no exact 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - for all sets of administrative proceedings; relevant final decisions: 06/09/2018, Moscow City Court; 12/04/2019, Moscow City Court; 06/08/2019, Moscow City Court. Penalty: fines of RUB 20,000 and RUB 250,000, administrative detention of 10 days;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events –   (1) Conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in unauthorised manifestation on 05/05/2018 published in social network / fine of RUB 20,000, Moscow City Court, 06/09/2018 (final); (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, fine of RUB 250,000/ Moscow City Court, 12/04/2019 (final); (3) Conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in unauthorised manifestation for fair election to Mosgorduma on 27/07/2019 published in social network Facebook, administrative detention of 10 days, Moscow City Court, 06/08/2019 (final);   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - Moscow, 15/12/2017, proposal to change the location, notification procedure, Moscow Government, 03/12/2017, administrative proceedings, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 18/10/2018.       11741/19* 25/02/2019 Nikita Sergeyevich BOGOMAZOV 1985 Vladimir Yuryevich Kostyushev Moscow 03/09/2018, 12.30 p.m. 04/09/2018, 7.50 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) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 03/09/2018 to 03/07/2019, Verkh-Isetsky District Court of Ekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Regional Court; 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 assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.     38668/19* 26/06/2019 Aleksey Igorevich LETUNOV 1994 Daniil Yuryevich Belov St Petersburg 10/09/2018, 2 a.m. 11/09/2018, 9.35 a.m. Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, § 35, 8 October 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)         57906/19* 22/10/2019 Nikita Vadimovich KUCHINSKIY 2000 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 09/09/2018, 4 p.m. 09/09/2018, 9.30 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)   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 Moscow City Court on 20/05/2019, administrative fine of RUB 10,000;     Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based; raised on appeal.     20554/21* 05/04/2021 Lyubov Fedorovna YEGORCHATOVA 1956     25/12/2018 10/01/2019 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). The courts acknowledged that the applicant’s detention was unlawful and awarded her RUB 35,000 (approximately EUR 390) for 17 days of unlawful detention, final decision taken by the Supreme Court of Russia on 08/12/2020.       30348/21* 11/05/2021 Alena Olegovna KULYUKINA 1995 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi 02/02/2021 03/02/2021 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 - Final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/02/2021 with the sentence of 5 days’ administrative detention;     Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based.     47456/21* 04/09/2021 Artem Aleksandrovich KRAUZOV 1992 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi 31/01/20221 31/01/2021 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 - 03/06/2021 Moscow City Court; administrative fine of RUB 15,000;     Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to question in open court police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based.     49494/21 01/10/2021 Vadim Nikolayevich SEMENOV 1982 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius 23/01/2021, 2.10 p.m. 23/01/2021, 9 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), 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), 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 Tula Regional Court on 06/04/2021, administrative fine of RUB 10,000.   52617/21* 29/09/2021 Natalya Aleksandrovna ARAPOVA 1976     31/01/2021 01/02/2021 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 - Final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 30/03/2021, administrative fine of RUB 10,000.   56109/21* 23/10/2021 Olga Vyacheslavovna MARCHENKO 1986 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi 23/01/2021 23/01/2021 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 - Final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 19/05/2021.   56370/21* 15/11/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich KOLESNIKOV 1980 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius 31/01/2021 31/01/2021 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 - administrative fine of RUB 15,000; 19/05/2021 Stavropol Regional Court.   56374/21 15/11/2021 Valentin Alekseyevich BOLDYSHEV 1956 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius 31/01/2021, 11.55 a.m. 31/01/2021, 4.45 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 - 19/05/2021 Pskov Regional Court; administrative fine of RUB 12,000.   57424/21* 26/11/2021 Murodzhon Anvarovich GAPAROV 1992 Aleksey Nikolayevich Laptev Moscow 20/10/2021   26/11/2021 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018), Authorities’ failure to specify the period of pre-trial detention (see Logvinenko v. Russia, no.   44511/04, §§ 35-39, 17 June 2010)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Lack of a prosecuting party at oral court hearings at trial and appeal on 21/10/2021 and 17/11/2021.   28750/22* 24/05/2022 Dmitriy Vasilyevich LAZAREV 1973     09/04/2016, 5:30 a.m. 11/04/2016, 11.00 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), 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)   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - In 2019 the applicant brought civil proceedings seeking compensation for unlawful detention. The courts dismissed the claim stating that the period from 09/04/2016 to 11/04/2016 had been included in the term of punishment, final decision by the Supreme Court of Russia on 24/03/2022.   46372/22* 12/09/2022 Dzhon Pavlovich YEMELYANOV 2000     07/05/2022, 8.00 p.m. 08/05/2022, 5.36 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), 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). 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 - 10 days’ administrative detention, Moscow City Court, 13/05/2022;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his sentence – administrative arrest – before the appeal judgment was delivered;   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 statements his conviction was based.