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   FIFTH SECTION Application no.   52356/21 Artur Tofikovich MAGOMEDOV against Russia and 24 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     52356/21* 07/09/2021 Artur Tofikovich MAGOMEDOV 2002   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 16/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     55520/21* 23/10/2021 Ilya Vasilyevich KHVATOV 2001   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 03/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceeding,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     55527/21* 23/10/2021 Yuriy Alekseyevich BARANOV 1965   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 27/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     56000/21* 05/11/2021 Yevgeniy Vitalyevich KONOVALOV 1988   Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Omsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Omsk Regional Court 18/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     56271/21* 25/10/2021 Igor Yuryevich DRANDIN 1980   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Forum of Independent Deputies   Moscow   13/03/2021 article 20.33 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow 25/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest detention on 13/03/2021 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings     2372/22 06/12/2021 Kristina Olegovna KOVYRUSHINA 2000   Aleksey Vladimirovich Glukhov Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 01/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/04/2021 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     2376/22* 06/12/2021 Kirill Gennadyevich FEDOROV 1994   Aleksey Vladimirovich Glukhov Novocheboksarsk Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Cheboksary   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 01/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/04/2021 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     34956/22* 15/05/2022 Maksim Vladimirovich POVARNIN 1998   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 15/11/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 10.40 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 02/02/2021 - 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) 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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019); the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     35178/22* 26/06/2022 Igor Dmitriyevich DUDAR 1998   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 01/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 1.15 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 0.59 a.m. on 01/02/2021 - 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); 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); the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   35182/22* 27/06/2022 Natalya Olegovna BEKISHEVA 2001   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St   Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO detention for 5 days St Petersburg City Court 03/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 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); 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 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s 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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   35295/22 01/06/2022 Ivan Borisovich KUZNETSOV 1987   Leonid Leonidovich Krikun St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO 9 days’ administrative arrest St Petersburg City Court 03/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 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); 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 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s 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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   36847/22* 14/07/2022 Valeriya Maksimovna TOROPOVA 2001   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO 5 days’ administrative arrest St Petersburg City Court 15/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 24/02/2022 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   36874/22* 11/07/2022 Kseniya Konstantinovna MAKEYEVA 2000   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   03/03/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO 15 days’ administrative arrest St Petersburg City Court 14/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 03/03/2022 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   37022/22* 06/07/2022 Maksim Leonidovich FEDOTOV 1991   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO 10 days’ administrative arrest St Petersburg City Court 21/04/2022 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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   37034/22* 14/07/2022 Yelizaveta Pavlovna KUROCHKINA 2000   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO 7 days’ administrative arrest St Petersburg City Court 30/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 confront the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s 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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   37061/22* 17/07/2022 Anna Valeryevna FIRSOVA 1977   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   02/03/2022 article 20.2.2 §   4 of CAO fine of RUB 150,000 St Petersburg City Court 18/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 8.10 p.m. on 02/03/2022 to 2.15 p.m. on 03/03/2022 - 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); 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,     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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   37088/22* 17/07/2022 Vyacheslav Alekseyevich IVANOV 1990   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 12 days St Petersburg City Court 17/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 5 p.m. on 07/03/2022 - 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); 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 (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,     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.   38536/22* 20/07/2022 Tatyana Vladimirovna SIDOROVA 1997   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   02/04/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO 10 days’ administrative arrest St Petersburg City Court 11/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 3.40 p.m. on 02/04/2022 to 2.50 p.m. on 03/04/2022 - 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); 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 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - in ability to confront the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s 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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   38544/22* 19/07/2022 Yelena Viktorovna VISHNYAKOVA 1987   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   Volgograd   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 21/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 06/03/2022 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings   38560/22* 20/07/2022 Mayya Sergeyevna OZHIGANOVA 1991   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 22/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.45 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 2.05 a.m. on 28/02/2022 - 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); 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); the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   39039/22* 14/07/2022 Boris Pavlovich MASLAKOV 1986   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO 10 days’ administrative arrest St Petersburg City Court 15/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 8.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 7.00 p.m. on 01/03/2022 - 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); 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); the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative 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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   49766/22* 23/09/2022 Natalya Viktorovna CHEPAINOVA 1995   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   02/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 St Petersburg City Court 24/05/2022     50506/22 06/10/2022 Sofiya Anastasovna DEMYANOVA 1995   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 07/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 5.10 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 1.50   a.m. on 28/02/2022 - 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); 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); the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   19852/23* 22/09/2021 Yelena Andreyevna ZAGORULKO 1987   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   20293/23* 07/09/2021 Maksim Petrovich SIDOROVICH 1999   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days Moscow City Court 06/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 02/02/2021 - 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); the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based