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 } .sD87A9275 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside: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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 8 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   84346/17 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich YAKOVLEV against Russia and 9 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 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     84346/17* 06/12/2017 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich YAKOVLEV 1982 Aleksey Borisovich Vologin Volsk fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 7   months 26/07/2017 Volskiy District Court of the Saratov Region       1521/18* 24/11/2017 Valeriy Leonidovich BELOZERTSEV 1981       fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 8   months 14/11/2017 Solombalskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region       11944/19* 11/02/2019 Yuliya Vladimirovna BELOUSOVA 1974 Yevgeniy Valeryevich Kulakov Arkhangelsk fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 7   months 28/11/2018 Primorskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region 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 based.     26174/19* 06/05/2019 Aleksandr Ivanovich ARTYUKHOV 1957 Andrey Pavlovich Mitrofanov Gornyak fine of RUB 30,000, suspension of the driving licence for 1 year and 6   months 21/01/2019 Loktevskiy District Court of the Altay Region 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 based.     10155/20* 13/02/2020 Anastasiya Romanovna VASILYEVA 1998 Anton Alekseyevich Savelyev Domodedovo fine of RUB 15,000 08/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 03/08/2019 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   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 based.     10188/20* 03/02/2020 Vladimir Sergeyevich SHEVNIN 1979 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi fine of RUB 10,000 10/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/07/2019 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   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 conviction was based.     12984/20* 27/02/2020 Oleg Olegovich SUCHKOV 1974 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 06/09/2019 Moscow Coty Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/07/2019 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   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 based.     21376/20* 12/04/2020 Artem Alekseyevich GLUKHOV 2000     fine of RUB 10,000 22/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 03/08/2019 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period.     43065/21* 09/08/2021 Andrey Anatolyevich MYAZDRIKOV 2002 Viktoriya Maratovna Ilyasova Moscow detention for 7   days 10/02/2021 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 02/02/2021 for compiling an offence report,   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 based.   21790/23* 07/09/2021 Kirill Aleksandrovich ZHULIKOV 1997 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi fine of RUB 15,000 09/07/2021 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   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 his conviction was based.