CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s2A7D9A9F { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s739D2AAB { width:129.28pt; display:inline-block } .s8E2AAAF4 { width:45.18pt; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 July 2024   THIRD SECTION   Application no.   10618/19 Sergey Pavlovich LOGINOV and Others against Russia and 7 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 13 June 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 table, 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     10618/19* 25/02/2019 Sergey Pavlovich LOGINOV 1961   Vyacheslav Pavlovich BORONOS 1966   Yevgeniy Anatolyevich FEDIN 1977   Yevgeniy Nikolayevich KAYRYAK 1986   Artem Stanislavovich KIM 1988   Aleksey Nikolayevich PLEKHOV 1997   Artur Vasilyevich SEVERINCHIK 1968   Kirill Arturovich SEVERINCHIK 1997   Sergey Vladimirovich VOLOSNIKOV 1977 Petr Muzny Geneva 15/02/2019, 6.30 a.m. (Mr Kim, Mr   Volosnikov, Mr   Boronos, Mr   Kayryak, Mr   Plekhov, Mr   K.   Severinchik) 15/02/2019, 11 p.m. or later Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos.   7077/06 and 12 others, §§   76-79, 26   June 2018) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention of Mr   Loginov and Mr Fedin, since 15/02/2019 and possibly ongoing as of 16/09/2022, Surgut Town Court, Khanty-Mansi Regional Court, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding,   Art. 9 (1) - freedom of religion - criminal prosecution, arrest and detention of the applicants on the ground of their religious beliefs as Jehovah Witnesses.     14718/19 06/03/2019 Ivan Andreyevich TANSKIY 1991 Andrey Vasilyevich Sabinin Stavropol 06/09/2018, 8.15 p.m. 07/09/2018, until trial hearing 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: Stavropol Regional Court, 17/10/2018,   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 a rally against pension reform, published in “VKontakte”; final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 17/10/2018, detention of 5   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.     23703/19* 16/04/2019 Timofey Borisovich FILATOV 1989 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 09/09/2018 09/09/2018, raised in administrative proceedings 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO for posting, information about a public manifestation against the pension reform organised by A. Navalnyy; final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 14/11/2018, fine of RUB 13,000.     41164/21* 24/07/2021 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich KOCHEGIN 1998 Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 22/01/2021, 6 a.m.         29/01/2021, 2.20 p.m.         20/04/2021, 1.36 a.m. 22/01/2022, 2.15 p.m. (hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case)   29/01/2021, 5.30 p.m. (hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case)   20/04/2021, 12 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: 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction for calls to participate in unauthorised rallies in support of Mr A. Navalnyy:   1) calls on Telegram messenger, article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO; final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 28/01/2021, detention of 7 days;   2) calls to inmates serving administrative detention sentences with the applicant and on the applicant’s personal page in “Vkontakte” social network, article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO; final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 04/02/2021, detention of 10 days;   3) calls on Telegram messenger, article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO; final decision: Volgograd Region Court, 26/04/2021, 25 days of administrative detention,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Volgograd Regional Court, 28/01/2021 and 26/04/2021,   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,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the administrative detention sentences imposed on the applicant were enforced immediately after the respective decisions of the first-instance court on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.     13921/22 10/03/2022 Arseniy Vasilyevich SHCHEGLOV 1992 Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 3/11/2021, 7 p.m. 04/11/2021, 1 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, 21/12/2021,   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 CAO for calls on Instagram to participate in an unauthorised rally against QR-codes, final decision Kaliningrad Regional Court, 21/12/2021, fine of RUB 20,000.     22164/22* 11/04/2022 Konstantin Aleksandrovich KOTOV 1985     25/11/2021, 4 p.m.           24/02/2022, 8 p.m. 26/11/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal on 02/12/2021(application of 11/04/2022)   25/02/2022, until court hearing, raised on appeal on 10/03/2022 (application of 09/07/2022) 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) 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 25/11/2021 against liquidation of Memorial, published in Telegram; final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/12/2021, detention of 9 days; 2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 24/02/2022 against the war, published on Facebook; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/03/2022, detention of 30 days,   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, 02/12/2021 and 10/03/2022,   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. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction and transportation - transport on 14, 15, 16, 19, 27/08/2019 and 03, 04, 05/09/2019, 10-12 inmates in a compartment for 7, restricted access to toilet, hot food and water; IK-2, 28/11/2019 - 30/03/2020, 11/06/2020 - 16/12/2020, 2 sq. m. of personal space, washing once a week, hair short, uncomfortable position during searches, inadequate temperature, no gloves; compensation claim, allowed in part, in particular, as regards the gloves, conditions of transport and lack of a window for transfer of documents in the visiting room, Supreme Court of Russia, 29/01/2024, RUB 30,000 (approximately 300 euros),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of conditions of detention and conditions of transport.t     28374/22 25/05/2022 Yegor Sergeyevich ALASHEYEV 1983 Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 19/02/2021 19/02/2021 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) Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for posting a call on a social network to participate in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy on 18/02/2021 in Samara; final decision: Samara Regional Court, 25/11/2021, detention of 7 days,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Samara Regional Court, 25/11/2021,   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.     12718/23* 24/10/2022 Yevgeniya Aleksandrovna MINAYEVA 1993     10/03/2022, 12.15   p.m. 10/03/2022, 8 p.m., 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) Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for posting on the applicant’s VKontakte web page a call to participate in the anti-war protest in Moscow on unspecified date; final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/06/2022, detention of 5 days,   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, 27/06/2022, detention of 5 days,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based: the applicant did not explain why the police officers’ statements were decisive for the outcome of the case,   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.