CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 novembre 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 } Published on 27 November 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   4374/18 Daniil Viktorovich GOGOLEV against Russia and 13 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 November 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     4374/18* 10/01/2018 Daniil Viktorovich GOGOLEV 1989   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 08/07/2017 10/07/2017 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). 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 - Art.   6.9 of CAO, final decision on 12/07/2017 by Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk,   Prot. 7 Art.   2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate execution of the sentence of detention in the case under Art. 20.1 of CAO (final decision on 26/07/2017 by Krasnodar Regional Court); an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect     11309/18* 08/02/2018 Zoren Rubenovich ISABEKYAN 1968 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg 22/05/2017 23/05/2017 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). 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 - Art.   19.3 of CAO, 2-day detention, final decision on 15/08/2017 by the Novosibirsk Regional Court,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - in particular, the right to examine police officers and other officials whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant, coordinator for NGO "Conscript’s school" assisting persons in relation to matters relating to military conscription, was interviewing conscripts in front of a local military registration and enlistment office, with a view to preparing the NGO’s report on conscripts’ rights; he was arrested in relation to a failure to get into a police vehicle (to submit to arrest) and was sentenced, in the above proceedings, to detention     15422/18* 28/02/2018 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich ANTOKHIN 1975 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi 13/08/2020 14/08/2020 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)       58779/18* 20/11/2018 Oksana Petrovna VOLOBUYEVA 1973     04/11/2017 06/11/2017 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). 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 - Art.   20.1 § 2 CAO, fine of RUB 2,000; final decision on 22/05/2018 by Moscow City Court,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - in particular, the right to examine police officers whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,   Art.   11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - the applicant was arrested, as specified by the police officers, with a view to preventing "extremist activities consisting in organisation of non-approved rallies", following her arrival and stay in a dormitory in Moscow; according to the applicant, she was thereby prevented from participating in a protest rally to be held on 05/11/2017     15468/19 13/03/2019 Oyumaa Sedip oolovna DONGAK 1967   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 07/08/2018 07/08/2018 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. 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.   10 (1) - restriction on freedom of expression for displaying a totalitarian symbol - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 1,000 for displaying Nazi symbols (Art. 20.3 CAO, final decision on 13/09/2018 by the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic) (RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia, no.   44561/11, 11 May 2021, and Karatayev v.   Russia [Committee], no.   56109/07, 13   July 2021)     24195/19 27/04/2019 Marina Aleksandrovna LUKYANETS 1976 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 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). 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.   6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Art.   20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 04/02/2019, Moscow City Court,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - in particular, the right to examine police officers whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant, a municipal councillor, was present (as an “observer”) at a protest rally in Moscow on 05/05/2018; she was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 15,000 in the above proceedings     46866/19 06/08/2019 Yevgeniy Ivanovich POPOV 1990 Igor Nikolayevich Sholokhov Kazan 08/04/2019 09/04/2019 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). 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.   6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in two sets of administrative-offence proceedings (Art.   20.2 § 5 and Art.   20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decisions on 07/05/2019 by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court),   Art.   10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - the applicant, a journalist, was present at a rally on 07/04/2019; he was arrested and sentenced to two fines of RUB 15,000 in the above proceedings,   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - in relation to the applicant’s participation in the rally on 07/04/2019 as a protested as considered by the courts,   Prot. 7 Art.   4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the substantially the same facts underlying prosecution in the above cases     26888/20* 01/06/2020 Stanislav Sergeyevich ZHARKOV 1991 Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg 17/11/2019 17/11/2019 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 two sets of administrative-offence proceedings (Arts.   17.10 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decisions on 04/03/2020 by the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg and on 17/03/2020, by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, respectively),   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant was arrested and sentenced, in the above proceedings, to the fines of RUB 2,000 and 10,000 for using the flag of Russia during a rally against political repressions on 17/11/2019,   Prot. 7 Art.   4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the substantially the same facts underlying prosecution in both cases     51551/20* 07/11/2020 Rushan Rafisovich KABIROV 1997     29/06/2020 30/06/2020 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). 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)     52309/20 31/10/2020 Georgiy Genrikhovich MALETS 1990 Leonid Alekseyevich Solovyev Moscow 03/02/2020 03/02/2020 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 (Art.   20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 14/05/2020 by the Moscow City Court),   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - right to examine police officers whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,   Art.   10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - being assigned by a media outlet, the applicant was present, with a view to taking photographs, at a rally on 03/02/2020 to support persons accused in the so-called "Novoye Velichiye" case; he was arrested and sentenced, in the above proceedings, to a fine of RUB   15,000 because the courts considered that he had actively acted as a rally participant,   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - in relation to the applicant’s participation in the rally on 03/02/2020 as a protester as considered by the courts   31998/21* 16/06/2021 Boris Igorevich ZHIRNOV 1960 Galina Yuryevna Arapova Voronezh 13/11/2020 15/11/2020 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). 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) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - being assigned by a media outlet, the applicant, a journalist with the “Arsenyevsk News” newspaper, reported on the rally on 07/11/2020 to support of S. Furgal in Khabarovsk; he was arrested on 13-15/11/2020 and sentenced to 3-day detention for participation in that rally (Art.   20.2 §   6.1 of CAO, final decision on 16/12/2020 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court),   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – as above, on account of the exercise of freedom of expression by a rally participant as considered by the courts,   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 10/11/2020 the applicant published a video on his personal YouTube channel which depicted banned symbols related to a banned organisation; he was sentenced to 10-day detention (Art.   20.3. § 1 CAO, final decision on 27/01/2021 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court) (cf. RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia, no.   44561/11, 11 May 2021, and Karatayev v.   Russia [Committee], no.   56109/07, 13 July 2021)   32822/21* 20/06/2021 Yekaterina Nikolayevna BIYAK 1984 Tumas Arsenovich Misakyan Moscow 12/11/2020 13/11/2020 13/11/2020 14/11/2020 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). 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 (Art.   20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decision on 24/12/2020 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court),   Art.   10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 10,000 and two-day detention because the courts considered her as a participant in the rallies on 13/09/2020 and 15/09/2020 and not as a journalist assigned by a media outlet to report on those rallies and clearly identified as such during them (Art.   20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decisions on 22/12/2020 and 24/12/2020, respectively, by the Khabarovsk Regional Court),   Art.   10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - in relation to participation in two rallies   35185/21* 18/06/2021 Yevgeniya Sergeyevna VANEYEVA 1996   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 11/02/2021 11/02/2021 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 (Art.   20.2 of CAO, final decision on 09/04/2021 by the Saratov Regional Court),   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - right to examine police officers whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,   Art.   10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - on 21/01/2021 the applicant created a chat in “Viber” social network to organise a rally in her village to support A.   Navalnyy; receiving no support among her fellow villagers, she removed the chat and cancelled the event; she was arrested and sentenced to 20 hours of community work in the above proceedings,   Art.   11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - see above   7948/22* 24/12/2021 Artem Aleksandrovich MAZANOV 1996 Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg 31/01/2021 01/02/2021 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). 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) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - the applicant was present, as a journalist of TJournal, at the rally on 31/01/2021 (support to I.   Dadin) and was arrested