CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 2 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   17908/20 Olga Leonidovna SHALINA against Russia (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 7 November 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia. 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 application 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 Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) 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 17908/20* 24/03/2020 Olga Leonidovna SHALINA 1983   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan 11/02/2020, 2.20 p.m.     02/02/2022 12/02/2020,       03/02/2022 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 complaint was raised in the administrative proceedings),   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:   (1)     The final decision on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 14/02/2020; the applicant was sentenced to 10 days’ administrative arrest;   (2)     The final decision on the matter was taken on 16/02/2022; the applicant was sentenced to 15 days’ administrative arrest,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - In respect of both sets of proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - The applicant was prosecuted:   (1)     for having posted her photos with an armband or a pin with a National Bolshevik logo (hammer and sickle in a white circle against the red background (Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences)). The domestic courts found that the said logo belonged to the party which had been declared an extremist organisation in Russia and that the logo was similar to a Nazi symbol;   (2)     for having posted photos of a party membership card containing a thunderbolt symbol used by National Bolshevik party (Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences) –   excessively wide definition of extremism in the absence of indication of violence (Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158059, 7   June 2022 (in respect of the second set of the proceedings); the applicant’s conviction did not correspond to a "pressing social need" and the sanction was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (Vajnai v. Hungary, no.   33629/06, §§ 48-58, 08/07/2008, in which the Court found a violation of Article 10 in respect of the applicant’s conviction for the mere fact that he had worn a red star, being a symbol of a totalitarian regime)