CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.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 5 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   64176/17 Nina Mikhaylovna POPOVA against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 11 January 2024, 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     64176/17* 25/08/2017 Nina Mikhaylovna POPOVA 1979   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Protest (display of a banner) against corruption of sports judges   Krasnodar region   19/01/2017 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 45 hours of community work Krasnodar Regional Court 27/02/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 5:19 p.m. on 19/01/2017 and 2:00 p.m. of 20/01/2017 when the applicant was transferred to the court     71097/17* 18/09/2017 Andrey Vasilyevich ZHUZHGOV 1969 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov Sochi Anti-corruption rally   Krasnodar   26/03/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 10 days Krasnodar Regional Court 06/04/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on 26/03/2017,   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) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - the applicant was not notified about the appeal court hearing which was held in his absence,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - unfair criminal proceedings due to lack of legal representation - the applicant’s lawyer had been notified about the appeal court hearing only 3,5 hours before it took place and the appeal court hearing was held in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer,   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     74235/17* 06/10/2017 Konstantin Yuryevich SHEVANDOV 1998 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov Sochi Anti-corruption rally   Krasnodar   26/03/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 10 days Krasnodar Regional Court 06/04/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 2:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on 26/03/2017,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - the applicant had been notified about the appeal court hearing only 3 hours before it was held; the appeal hearing was held in his absence,   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,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - unfair criminal proceedings due to lack of legal representation - the applicant’s lawyer had been notified about the appeal court hearing only 3 hours before it took place and the appeal court hearing was held in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer,   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     74347/17* 06/10/2017 Denis Andreyevich PAVLOV 1993 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov Sochi Anti-corruption rally   Krasnodar   26/03/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 10 days Krasnodar Regional Court 06/04/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on 26/03/2017,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - the applicant was not notified about the appeal court hearing which was held in his absence,   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,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - unfair criminal proceedings due to lack of legal representation - the appeal court hearing was held in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer,   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     74353/17* 06/10/2017 Yevgeniy Pavlovich ONANCHENKO 1968 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov Sochi Anti-corruption rally   Krasnodar   26/03/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 15 days Krasnodar Regional Court 06/04/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record on 26/03/2017,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - the appeal court hearing was held in the applicant’s absence,   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,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - unfair criminal proceedings due to lack of legal representation - the applicant’s lawyer had been notified about the appeal court hearing less than 3 hours before it took place and the appeal court hearing was held in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer,   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     78721/17 03/11/2017 Olga Vladimirovna KURDELYAS 1991 Aleksey Vladimirovich Glukhov Novocheboksarsk Rally for protection of environment   Cheboksary   26/03/2017   Rally for protection of environment   Cheboksary   26/03/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   1,000           fine of RUB   15,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 04/05/2017       Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 07/09/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both sets of the proceedings     79492/17* 20/10/2017 Viktor Viktorovich CHIRIKOV 1962 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov Sochi Anti-corruption rally   Krasnodar   26/03/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO           article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention of 3   days           detention for 3 days Krasnodar Regional Court 26/04/2017         Krasnodar Regional Court 26/04/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 6:00 p.m. and 10 p.m. on 26/03/2017,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - the applicant was not notified about the appeal court hearing which was held in his absence,   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,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in both sets of the 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 – in both sets of the proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - refusal to allow evidence in support of the applicant’s account of events (video records of his arrest) – both sets of the proceedings     3115/18* 16/12/2017 Dmitriy Igorevich REZNICHENKO 1990 Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Anti-corruption rally   Komsomolsk-on-Amur   26/03/2017 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO detention for 2 days Khabarovsk Regional Court 16/06/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 2:10 p.m. on 26/03/2017 and 2:00 p.m. on 27/03/2017,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings (concerning the events of March 2017 and September 2018),   Art. 6 (3) (b) - adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence - the administrative hearing took place soon after the applicant was charged with an administrative offence, on the same day,   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     3504/18 03/01/2018 Anton Igorevich TEREKHIN 1984 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow Anti-corruption rally   Vladivostok   26/03/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 03/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record on 26/03/2017,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4138/18* 20/12/2017 Sergey Vladimirovich ANDREYEV 1978 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow Anti-corruption rally   Almetyevsk   12/06/2017 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 5 days Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 21/06/2017 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,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - the applicant was not able to take part in the appeal hearing of his case via video link because the appeal court allegedly did not establish a connection.