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.   26935/21 Yuriy Vladimirovich BEREZUTSKIY against Russia and 13 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 11 of the Convention relating to disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     26935/21* 17/05/2021 Yuriy Vladimirovich BEREZUTSKIY 1997   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 18/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021 from 12.00   p.m. until 9   p.m.,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based     35142/21* 25/06/2021 Aleksandr Grigoryevich DAVLYATCHIN 1984   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 30/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021 from 11.55 a.m. until 11.30   p.m.;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based     41819/21* 02/08/2021 Andrey Aleksandrovich BELOTSERKOVSKIY 1992   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 6 days Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.00   p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 1   p.m. on 04/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     41837/21* 02/08/2021 Ivan Olegovich PETRYAKOV 1995   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 5 days Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 11.45   p.m. on 02/02/2021 until the court hearing at 12.30   p.m. on 03/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings ,   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 the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based.     46137/21 31/08/2021 Konstantin Vadimovich SHLYAKHOVOY 1980   Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Smolensk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Smolensk Regional Court 10/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report at 2   p.m. on 23/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based     46140/21* 01/09/2021 Nikolay Yevgenyevich FROLOV 1979 Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Velikiy Novgorod Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Velikiy Novgorod   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community service Novgorod Regional Court 04/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in the police station for compiling an offence report on 27/01/2021 from 10.30 a.m. until 2.30   p.m.,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based.     54270/21* 20/10/2021 Pavel Sergeyevich SHTANKO 1978 Olga Pavlovna Tseytlina St Petersburg Rally to support citizens of Belarus and "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   24/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 5 days St Petersburg City Court 20/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest at home at 3.55   p.m. on 23/03/2021, escorting to and detention at the police station from 4.15   p.m. on 23/03/2021 until court hearing at 11.40   p.m. on 25/03/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     54271/21* 20/10/2021 Yuliya Sergeyevna SHTANKO 1985 Olga Pavlovna Tseytlina St Petersburg Rally to support citizens of Belarus and "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   24/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 7 days St Petersburg City Court 15/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest at home address at 3.55   p.m. on 23/03/2021, escorting to and detention at the police station from 4.15   p.m. on 23/03/2021 until court hearing at 11.40   p.m. on 25/03/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     59870/21* 24/11/2021 Veronika Olegovna PSHENICHNAYA 1971   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tomsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Tomsk Regional Court 28/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings ,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 8.30   p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 0.30 a.m. on 22/04/2021,   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 the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based.   59884/21* 24/11/2021 Ivan Konstantinovich ANTOSHKIN 1992   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Kazan   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 02/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 7.50   p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 4.50   p.m. on 22/04/2021,   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 the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based.   60140/21 06/12/2021 Aleksey Alekseyevch STEPANOV 1982   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tomsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Tomsk Regional Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.35   p.m. until 10.15   p.m. on 21/04/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   2869/22* 07/12/2021 Andrey Andreyevich SIMONOV 1995     Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tyumen   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Tyumen Regional Court 07/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 8.15   p.m. on 21/04/2021 until court hearing at 2   p.m. on 22/04/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   2979/22* 17/12/2021 Yelena Grigoryevna KAREVA 1965 Darya Nikolayevna Maylova Krasnoyarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Krasnoyarsk 21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 17/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   34918/22* 25/06/2022 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich PROKOPCHUK 1979 Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Velikiy Novgorod Anti-war protest   Velikiy Novgorod   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Novgorod Regional Court 22/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.50   p.m. until 9.45   p.m. on 06/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings, 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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based