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   THIRD SECTION Application no.   24712/21 Pavel Vladimirovich KUZMIN against Russia and 13 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 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     24712/21* 19/04/2021 Pavel Vladimirovich KUZMIN 1992   Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 30/01/2021 6.35 p.m.   31/01/2021 unspecified time 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: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017). Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016),     Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Tver, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision Tver Regional Court 04/02/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v.   Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019).     28055/21 17/05/2021 Vadim Valeryevich OSTANIN 1976   Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 23/01/2021 9 a.m.   25/01/2021 8.30 a.m.   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 (see Karelin , cited above),     Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Barnaul, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision Altay Regional Court 29/01/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above),   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 (see Martynyuk v.   Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019).     33807/21 03/06/2021 Tatyana Vladimirovna GLINBERG 1992   Andrey Vasilyevich Sabinin Stavropol 28/01/2021 10 a.m.   29/01/2021 unspecified time 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 (see Karelin , cited above),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 31/01/2021 in Stavropol, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 5 days, final decision Stavropol Regional Court 01/02/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above),   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 (see Martynyuk , cited above).     42732/21 06/08/2021 Anna Pavlovna VELLIKOK 1991   Fedor Yevgenyevich Sirosh Moscow 29/01/2021 2.30 p.m.   30/01/2021 unspecified time 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 (see Karelin , cited above),   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 (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 150-59, 18   December 2018),     Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO, detention for 14 days, final decision Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above),   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 (see Martynyuk , cited above).     45346/21* 11/08/2021 Oleg Igorevich YEMELYANOV 1996       23/01/2021 2.05 p.m. 25/01/2021 2 p.m. 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 under Article 13.15. § 9 CAO (see Karelin , cited above),   Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - (1) conviction for making calls to participate in the rally to support A.   Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Kazan, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/02/2021, (2) conviction for posting a video on 10/02/2021 containing statements that rallies in support of A. Navalnyy that took place in January 2021 were peaceful and the authorities had no right to ban them, Article 13.15 § 9 CAO (spreading of false information), fine of RUB 30,000, final decision Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above),   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 (see Martynyuk , cited above).     45486/21* 30/08/2021 Vitaliy Anatolyevich POLYAKOV 1983   Vladimir Valeryevich Vasin Krasnoyarsk 23/01/2021 1 p.m.   23/01/2021 around 7 p.m. 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Krasnoyarsk, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 17/06/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above).     49393/21* 23/09/2021 Aleksey Igorevich KORABELNIKOV 1999   Feliks Yevgenyevich Vertegel Krasnodar 22/01/2021 2.15 p.m.   23/01/2021 9 a.m.   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 (see Karelin , cited above),     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 (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Krasnodar, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 5   days, final decision Krasnodar Regional Court 24/03/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above),   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 (see Martynyuk , cited above).     49641/21 14/09/2021 Yekaterina Vadimovna VERESHCHAGINA 1998   Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 20/04/2021 11.30 p.m.   21/04/2021 12.30 p.m.   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 (see Karelin , cited above) - final decision was taken on 28/04/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court,     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 and two eyewitnesses on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above - final decision was taken on 28/04/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - the applicant’s arrest and detention on 20/04/2021-21/04/2021 prevented her from taking part in the rally to support; By the judgment of 21/04/2021 she was found guilty of minor hooliganism consisting of using rude language in public place and sentenced to 10 days’ detention, final decision was taken on 28/04/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court. A.   Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 (see Kasparov v. Russia , no.   53659/07, §§ 66-69, 11 October 2016),   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 (see Martynyuk , cited above).     52926/21* 22/10/2021 Kirill Valeryevich ISHUTIN 1984   Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius 21/04/2021 9.38 p.m.   22/04/2021 unspecified time 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 under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, final decision Vladimir Regional Court 30/04/2021 (see Karelin , cited above),     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 (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above).   7496/22 30/12/2021 Liliya Fedorovna IVANOVA 1994   Vladimir Valeryevich Vasin Krasnoyarsk 30/01/2021 7.50 p.m.   01/02/2021 10.15 a.m.   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 (see Karelin , cited above),     Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Krasnoyarsk, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 25,000, final decision Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 08/07/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above).     33529/22* 27/04/2022 Nikolay Yuryevich KAVKAZSKIY 1986   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow 24/02/2022 11.10 p.m.   25/02/2022 1 p.m.   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 (see Karelin , cited above),   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 (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally against Russia’s military attack on Ukraine on 24/02/2022 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 6   days, final decision Moscow City Court 02/03/2022 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above),   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 (see Martynyuk , cited above).   39700/22 05/08/2022 Danil Mikhaylovich SOFRONOV 2003   Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg 25/02/2022 3.35 p.m.   26/02/2022 9.30 a.m.   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 (see Karelin , cited above),   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 (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above),     Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rallies against Russia’s military attack on Ukraine on 25/02/2022 in several Russian cities, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 7 days, final decision Sverdlovsk Regional Court 06/04/2022 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above).   41001/22* 03/08/2022 Yuliya Nikolayevna KHARITONOVA 1976   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow 01/03/2022 12.30 p.m.   01/03/2022 4.10 p.m.   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 the appeal hearing in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above),   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 (see Schatschaschwili , and Murtazaliyeva , cited above),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - protest against Russia’s military attack on Ukraine on 24/02/2022 in Kaliningrad, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, final decision Kaliningrad Regional Court 05/04/2022 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above).   43626/22* 19/08/2022 Lyubov Mikhaylovna KORKINA 1967       13/03/2022 1 p.m. 13/03/2022 5 p.m.   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 (see Karelin , cited above),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - protest against Russia’s military attack on Ukraine on 13/03/2022 in Kirov, Article 20.2 §   2 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, final decision Kirov Regional Court 28/04/2022 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above).