CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2025

.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 } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 17 February 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no.   9483/20 Yuliya Yevgenyevna GALYAMINA against Russia and 3 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 23 January 2025, 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 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     9483/20* 01/02/2020 Yuliya Yevgenyevna GALYAMINA 1973   Natalya Yuryevna Morozova Moscow Land Congress   Novgorod   22/05/2021   Meeting with potential voters   Moscow   14/07/2019   Manifestation against amendments to Constitution   Moscow   15/07/2020   Meeting in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021     Meeting with potential voters   Moscow   15/07/2019   Meeting with potential voters   Moscow   17/07/2019   Rally against the ineligibility of candidates for the elections   Moscow   27/07/2019 articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO         articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 2 of CAO           article 212.1 of CC               article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention of 7   days and fine of RUB 10,000       fines of RUB   1,000 and 30,000         imprisonment of 2 years (suspended)           fine of RUB   15,000             fine of RUB   20,000           fine of RUB   20,000           detention of 15   days Novgorod Regional Court 26/05/2021 and 24/06/2021         Moscow City Court 10/09/2019 (two decisions)           Second Cassation Court 09/12/2021             Moscow City Court 19/08/2021             Moscow City Court 20/02/2020           Moscow City Court 20/02/2020           Moscow City Court 08/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis:     Administrative arrest and detention from 8.30 p.m. on   14/07/2019 to 2.40 a.m. on 15/07/2019, from noon on   21/08/2019 to 22/08/2019:     Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three ‑ hour statutory period - the issue was raised in the course of administrative proceedings against the applicant on the charges of article 19.3 of CAO; final decision: Moscow City Court on 10/09/2019; the complaint was introduced on 08/02/2020;   Administrative arrest and detention on 22/05/2021 - 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in several sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/08/2019, 08/08/2019, 27/08/2019, 10/09/2019, 20/02/2020, 19/08/2021, Novgorod Regional Court, 26/05/2021 and 24/06/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - Freedom of expression:   The applicant was found guilty of an administrative offence (article 20.2 § 2 of CAO) and sentenced to 10   days’ detention for publishing calls to take part in a manifestation on 27/07/2019; final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/08/2019; The applicant was found guilty of an administrative offence (article 20.2 § 2 of CAO) and sentenced to a fine of RUB 30,000 for publishing calls to potential voters to meet her as a candidate for elections to the Moscow City Duma on 14/07/2019; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/09/2019;   The applicant was found guilty of an administrative offence (article 20.2 § 2 of CAO) and sentenced to a 10   days’ administrative arrest for publishing calls to take part in a manifestation in the centre of Moscow on 03/08/2019; final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/08/2019,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - The applicant was unable to confront the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based (final decisions: Moscow City Court, 10/09/2019 and 08/08/2019),   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the trial court on 24/05/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO; final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 26/05/2021       26917/20* 29/05/2020 Andrey Vladimirovich BOROVIKOV 1988       Manifestation against waste dump   Shies, Arkhangelsk Region   07/04/2019 article 212 §   1 of CC 400 hours of compulsory work Arkhangelsk Regional Court 29/11/2019       28586/24* 15/09/2024 Yuriy Dmitriyevich YULIN 1991       Anti-war rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 §   5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 15/05/2024 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - escorting to the police station on 27/02/2022; no explanation why it was impossible to draw the offence record at the scene     34187/24 05/08/2022 Mariya Aleksandrovna KONOSOVA 1987       Anti-war rally   St Petersburg 27/02/2022 article 20.2.2. §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 05/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - escorted to the police station on 27/02/2022 for reasons unknown and held there for twenty hours, raised on appeal,   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 05/04/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - arresting police officers have not been examined in court