CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 septembre 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 } .s69724500 { height:33.7pt } .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 } .sE5DD0776 { height:50.1pt } .s4775D7A { height:25.25pt } .sC45FE089 { height:75.85pt } .sDBB86575 { height:31.95pt } .sC440E089 { height:70.05pt } .sEBCD263B { height:28.6pt } Published on 2 October 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no.   83527/17 Aleksey Aleksandrovich PETROV against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 7 September 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 6 § 1 of the Convention relating to lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin v.   Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law     83527/17 17/11/2017 Aleksey Aleksandrovich PETROV 1971   Aleksey Borisovich Vologin Volsk community service of 20 hours 21/06/2017, Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region Art. 6 (3) (c) - free legal assistance - The applicant was not provided with a lawyer in course of the administrative proceedings against him.     31332/18* 19/06/2018 Yelizaveta Vasilyevna KUZNETSOVA 1994   Yevgeniy Valeryevich Kulakov Arkhangelsk suspension of the driving licence for 1 year 22/05/2018, Arkhangelsk Regional Court       3404/19* 04/01/2019 Nikita Aleksandrovich YEFIMOV 1971       1) administrative fine of RUB 30,000   2) administrative fine of RUB 30,000 1) 28/08/2018, Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow;   2) 28/08/2018, Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow       19369/19* 30/03/2019 Vasiliy Vladimirovich YEGOROV 1989   Aleksey Borisovich Vologin Volsk administrative fine of RUB   30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8 months 19/03/2019, Military Court of Privolzhskiy Circuit       20172/19* 25/03/2019 Vladimir Petrovich MAKSIMOV 1957       administrative fine of RUB 200,000 04/10/2018, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court       47825/19* 01/09/2019 Dmitriy Olegovich KAZAKOV 1996   Sergey Trofimovich Maryin Saransk administrative detention of 2 days 01/03/2019, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saransk       62670/19* 20/11/2019 Sergey Andreyevich PERMYAKOV 1987   Roman Yevgenyevich Kachanov Yekaterinburg administrative detention of 7 days 21/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - The applicant was not present at appeal hearing in the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 21/05/2019, since he was serving his administrative detention and was not escorted to the appeal court;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 15/05/2019 was executed immediately. The applicant complained of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)     40514/21* 25/07/2021 Viktor Nikolayevich KOTOV 1993   Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg administrative detention of 5 days 26/01/2021, Moscow City Court Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 22/01/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     54124/21* 22/10/2021 Ravil Marsovich SULEYMANOV 1990   Tural Akhmed ogly Ibragimov Moscow administrative fine of RUB 20,000 22/04/2021, Moscow City Court Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - The court refused to question in court police officers who arrested the applicant and on whose written statements his conviction of an administrative offence was based;     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing upa record of arrest, detention for more than three hours.   14478/22* 07/02/2022 Ruslan Sergeyevich SHULGA 1992       administrative fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6 months 10/08/2021, Bureyskiy District Court of the Amur Region