CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 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 } .s39134627 { height:66.6pt } Published on 30 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no.   3001/18 Valeriy Aleksandrovich KADULIN against Russia and 11 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 5 October 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     3001/18 19/12/2017 Valeriy Aleksandrovich KADULIN 1975     11/05/2016 11/05/2016 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)   The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 19/06/2017.       32759/18* 04/07/2018 Dmitriy Anatolyevich LYSENKO 1969 Lyudmila Petrovna Antonova Yekaterinburg 05/08/2016, 1   p.m. 06/08/2016, 9   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)       35471/18* 27/08/2018 Andrey Yuryevich BACHURIN 1981 Valeriya Yuryevna Prikhodkina Chelyabinsk 28/07/2018 31/07/2018 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)       49366/18* 10/10/2018 Vadim Vilyevich KHAYRULLIN 1972 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius 12/03/2018, 9.50 a.m. 13/03/2018, 3.45 p.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 - in respect of the proceedings which ended on 26/04/2018, with the final decision of the Kaliningrad Regional Court     30270/20* 29/06/2020 Svetlana Petrovna NEVZOROVA 1970     03/03/2020 11/03/2020 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)       33862/21* 24/06/2021 Kristina Nikolayevna SIDOROVA 2001 Aleksey Aleksandrovich Pryanishnikov Tomsk 13/03/2021 10.30 a.m. 13/03/2021 6.23 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. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public manifestations – the applicant was arrested during her participation in a public event, Open Russia Civic Movement on 13/03/2021, convicted under Art. 20.33 of CAO, and sentenced to an administrative fine of RUB 15,000; final decision of the Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow on 20/05/2021     34922/21 20/06/2021 Vladislav Yuryevich ZLOBIN 1992 Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 22/01/2021 7.05 p.m. 23/01/2021, hearings in the applicant’s administrative-offence case 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) , 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: Lipetsk Regional Court, 28/01/2021,   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 and "members of the public" on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based - Final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 28/01/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 23/01/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - Administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised public event (rally) in support to Mr   A.   Navalnyy on 23/01/2021. Administrative detention of 10 days. Final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 28/01/2021     45158/21* 21/08/2021 Vadim Igorevich ANTONOV 1980 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi 14/02/2021 14/02/2021 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 24/03/2021,   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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was basedЖ final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 24/03/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - sticking posters with calls to participate in an opposition rally on 14/02/2021 / Art.   20.2.5 of CAO / Moscow City Court 24/03/2021     47242/21* 10/09/2021 Aleksey Dmitriyevich DOROZHKIN 1986 Tatyana Georgiyevna Martynova Pskov 22/01/2021 4 p.m. 23/01/2021 2.30 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 by the Pskov Regional Court on 15/03/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Pskov, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 5 days, final decision by the Pskov Regional Court on 15/03/2021.   2546/22* 20/12/2021 Aleksandr Nikolayevich NOSACHEV 1982 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin Moscow 27/02/2022 27/02/2022 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 – final decision on 17/06/2022, the Moscow City Court,   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,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - Inability to cross-examine during the court proceedings the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based: final decision on 17/06/2022, Moscow City Court   3801/22* 24/12/2021 Eldar Aliyevich KURMAKAYEV 1989   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 21/04/2021 11:00 a.m. 21/04/2021 3 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Volgograd, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision Volgograd Regional Court on 24/06/2021   25698/22 17/05/2022 Aleksey Olegovich KOLEGOV 1970 Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou 21/04/2021 23/04/2021 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) , 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Syktyvkar, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 25,000, final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 17/11/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – see the proceedings above