CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 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 8 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   10722/21 Margarita Vitalyevna KONOVALOVA against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 30 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     10722/21* 08/02/2021 Margarita Vitalyevna KONOVALOVA 1997   Leonid Alekseyevich Solovyev Moscow 03/12/2020 21/07/2021   03/12/2020 22/07/2021   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. 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 26/11/2020, 08/12/2020 and 27/07/2011 respectively. In the third set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of the failure to comply with the police officer’s lawful order and sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest,   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 the police officers on whose statements her conviction was based - in respect of all sets of the proceedings (see above),   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence imposed on the applicant was executed immediately in view of the lack of a suspensive effect of the appeal (in respect of the proceedings which ended on 08/12/2020 and 27/07/2021 respectively),   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Protest in the form of a photo shooting in public, Moscow, 14/07/2020, final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 26/11/2020, Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000; Rally against police violence, Moscow, 28/11/2020, final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 08/12/2020, 20 days’ administrative arrest, Article 20.2 § 8 CAO     57549/21* 12/11/2021 Veronika Yuryevna NIKULSHINA 1997   Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk 07/05/2021 16/06/2021 02/07/2021 08/05/2021 17/06/2021 03/07/2021 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) 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 the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based (in respect of the second set of the proceedings which ended on 22/06/2021),   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 two sets of the proceedings: (1) in the first set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of the failure to comply with the lawful police order (to produce an ID) and was sentenced to 5 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 12/05/2021. (2) in the second set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of the failure to comply with the lawful police order (refusal to be taken to a police station for questioning) and sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken on 22/06/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant on 08/05/2021, 17/06/2021 and 03/07/2021 by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     1873/22* 21/12/2021 Anna Alekseyevna KUZMINYKH 1994   Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk 22/06/2021 09/05/2021 23/06/2021 09/05/2021 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), 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) Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant on 23/06/20201 and 09/07/2021 by the Meshchanskiy and Zamoskvoretskiy District Courts of Moscow respectively were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - The applicant was found guilty of the failure to comply with the lawful police order (to produce an ID) and was sentenced to 15- and 10-day administrative arrests, respectively. The final decisions on the matter were taken by the Moscow City Court on 25/06/2021 and 27/07/2021, respectively     3387/22* 27/12/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich VORONTSOV 1999   Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk 22/06/2021 23/06/2021 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), 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 - In respect of both sets of the proceedings: (1) the applicant was found guilty of disturbance of peace and sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 01/07/2021; (2) the applicant was found guilty of disturbance of peace and sentenced to 10 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 15/10/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant on 23/06/2021 and 08/07/2021 by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow and Tverskoy District Court of Moscow respectively were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based (in respect of the proceedings which ended on 01/07/2021)     3556/22* 24/12/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SOFEYEV 1987   Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk 22/06/2021 07/07/2021 23/06/2021 08/07/2021 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), 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) Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of the 4, 15 and 12 days’ administrative arrest, respectively, imposed on the applicant on 10/05/2021 by the Sovetskiy District Court of Tula, on 03/06/2021 by the Basamannyy District Court of Moscow and on 08/07/2021 by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - In respect of all sets of the proceedings: (1) in the first set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of petty disturbance of peace and was sentenced to 4 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Tula Regional Court on 24/06/2021; (2) in the second set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of petty disturbance of peace and was sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 01/07/2021; (3) in the third set of the proceedings the applicant was found guilty of petty disturbance of peace and was sentenced to 12 days’ administrative arrest. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 15/10/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - The applicant complains that he was unable to confront the police officers on whose written statement his conviction was based (in respect of the proceedings which ended on 01/07/2021)     4465/22* 10/01/2022 Roman Aleksandrovich DUROV 1995   Mansur Idrisovich Gilmanov Podolsk 02/07/2021 03/07/2021 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), 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) Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher court - the sentence of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant on 03/07/2021 by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO