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.   38147/18 Maksim Viktorovich MAKHAYEV and Others against Russia and 18 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     38147/18* 26/07/2018 Maksim Viktorovich MAKHAYEV 1989   Anna Nikolayevna MAKHAYEVA 1993   Andrey Viktorovich PAVLOVSKIY 1976 Sergey Trofimovich Maryin Saransk 29/01/2018, 11 a.m. 29/01/2018, 6.30 p.m. 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)       38258/18 02/08/2018 Oleg Alekseyevich ALEKSEYEV 1995 Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov Kazan 27/01/2018, 6.40 p.m. 29/01/2018, 2.15 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal 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 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) Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for distributing flyers with calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 28/01/2018 against participation in elections; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, 02/02/2018, detention of 20 days     38657/18* 02/08/2018 Nikolay Nikolayevich LYASKIN 1982 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius 28/01/2018,   2.00 p.m.     05/05/2018, 2.20 p.m. 28/01/2018, 9.55 p.m., raised on appeal 07/05/2018, 2.18 p.m., raised on appeal 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 02/02/2018 and 31/05/2018, 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, final decision: Moscow City Court, 31/05/2018,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - 1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 28/01/2018 against elections, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/02/2018, detention of 15 days 2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 05/05/2018 against re-election of the President, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, 31/05/2018, detention of 10 days     2740/19* 29/12/2018 Lyudmila Viktorovna ULYUFSEN 1955 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin Moscow 04/07/2018, 6.20 p.m.     09/07/2018, 8.55 p.m.     10/07/2018, 9.10 p.m. 06/07/2018, until court hearing   10/07/2018, until court hearing   11/07/2018, until court hearing 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 20/07/2018, 14/08/2018 and 18/10/2018     13415/19 25/02/2019 Yuriy Sergeyevich KUZMINYKH 1978 Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg 09/09/2018 11/09/2018 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) , 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 21/09/2018 and 27/09/2018,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 09/09/2018 against pension reform, published on Facebook; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 27/09/2018, detention of 30 days,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO for disobeying police officers on 09/09/2018, day of the unauthorized manifestation; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 21/09/2018, detention of 5 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     31922/19* 29/05/2019 Stefaniya Vladimirovna VETROVA 1988 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin Moscow 09/08/2018 09/08/2018, raised on appeal on 05/02/2019 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 05/02/2019     14908/20* 07/03/2020 Nikita Vladimirovich ZAYTSEV 1997 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi 23/09/2019, 6.10 p.m.   02/11/2021, 8.00 p.m.   04/11/2020, 3.00 p.m.   24/09/2019, 9.20 a.m.   03/11/2021, 10.10 a.m.   05/11/2020, 2.40 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: 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 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019, 09/11/2020 and 03/11/2021,   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 police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based; final decisions: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019, 09/11/2020 and 03/11/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 27/07/2019 in support of opposition candidates for election, published in Telegram; final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019, detention of 15 days,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article   20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO for participation in unauthorised manifestation against abuses by the police on 04/11/2020, final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/11/2020, detention of 15 days     31917/21* 09/06/2021 Georgiy Valentinovich ALBUROV 1989 Vladlen Kornelevich Los Vilnius 21/01/2021, 9.00 p.m. 22/01/2021, 2.30 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/01/2021,   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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/01/2021, detention of 10 days     36731/21* 07/07/2021 Vadim Leonidovich KOBZEV 1997 Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 22/01/2021 23/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal 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) , 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 29/01/2021,   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 police officers and an accusation witness 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   38177/21* 21/07/2021 Sofiya Yevgenyevna KAPINOSOVA 1998 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 23/01/2021, 2.30 p.m.           23/04/2021, 11.45 a.m. 24/01/2021, 12.30 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal   23/04/2021, 4.35 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both proceedings - final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 02/02/2021 and 27/04/2021,   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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based in both sets of proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - 1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 02/02/2021, detention of 9 days; 2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, on 27/04/2021, detention of 15 days   42344/21* 31/07/2021 Tatyana Gennadyevna KOROVINA 1955   Anastasiya Alekseyevna SHVAREVA 1998   Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA 1975   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Ms Korovina 31/01/2021, 1.50 p.m.       Ms Uvarkina 31/01/2021, 12.15 p.m.       Ms Shvareva 31/01/2021, 1 p.m. 31/01/2021, 7.45 p.m., raised on appeal on 17/03/2021   31/01/2021, 5.00   p.m., raised on appeal on 23/06/2021   31/01/2021, 10.10 p.m., raised on appeal on 23/06/2021 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), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no.   47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017) , 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)     43402/21* 02/08/2021 Anton Dmitriyevich LYKOV 1994 Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 31/01/2021 01/02/2021, raised on appeal 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 07/04/2021,   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 the trial police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy published in VKontakte; final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 07/04/2021, detention for 5 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention of five days imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   49520/21* 01/10/2021 Karina Mikhaylovna SHEYKINA 1988 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius 31/01/2021 31/01/2021, raised on appeal 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 07/04/2021,   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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based   34006/22* 24/06/2022 Margarita Aleksandrovna VAYNER 2002 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow 25/02/2022, 5.00 p.m. 26/02/2022, 1.00 p.m., until court hearing 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 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/02/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised anti-war protest on 25/02/2022, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/02/2022, detention of 7 days,   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   43486/22 21/08/2022 Yevgeniy Artemovich ZATEYEV 2001 Anastasiya Vladimirovna Pilipenko St Petersburg 27/02/2022, 12.30 p.m. 28/02/2022, 11.10 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal 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), 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 - final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 21/04/2022,   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,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised anti-war protest on 27/02/2022, published in VKontakte; final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 21/04/2022, detention of 9 days,   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   45170/22 09/09/2022 Olga Yaroslavovna MURAVYEVA 1988 Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg 23/03/2022 25/03/2022, until court hearing, raised on appeal Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art.   27.2 § 3 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 11/05/2022,   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,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate restriction of her freedom of expression on account of her conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for having published on 07/03/2022 on Youtube a video "No war. Appeal to women" considered by the authorities as constituting a call to participate in the Anti-war rally on 08/03/2022; final decision: Moscow City Court, 11/05/2022, fine of RUB 20,000   47684/22* 16/09/2022 Irina Mikhaylovna KUZMINA 1979 Yuliya Valeryevna Malinina Moscow 17/02/2022, 3.40 p.m. 17/02/2022, 8.25 p.m., raised on appeal Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art.   27.2 § 3 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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/07/2022,   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   12055/23* 10/02/2023 Dmitriy Sergeyevich BATALIN 1995   Vitaliy Yuryevich GRYAZNOV 1982 Vitaliy Petrovich PODSIVAKA 1951   Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Mr Podsivaka:   10/07/2022, 1.00 p.m.       10/07/2022, 2.15 p.m., raised on appeal 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) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - Mr Batalin and Mr Gryaznov were charged under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for having published a series of anti-war commentaries in Vkontakte social network. On 25/08/2022 Mr Batalin was sentenced by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Yaroslavl to an administrative fine of RUB 30,000 (upheld by the Yaroslavl Regional Court on 10/10/2022). On 16/06/2022 Mr Gryaznov was sentenced by the Tambovskiy District Court of the Tambov Region to an administrative fine of RUB 30,000 (upheld by the Tambov Regional Court on 10/10/2022). On 16/06/2022 Mr Podsivaka took part in a solo piquet. He was charged under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO and sentenced by the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk to an administrative fine of RUB 30,000 (upheld by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 12/10/2022)   34239/23* 16/09/2021 Kirill Aleksandrovich SONIN 1997 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 31/01/2021 01/02/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 31/03/2021