CASE OF KARPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 11042/19 and 49 others

Last Updated on April 27, 2023 by LawEuro

FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KARPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 11042/19 and 49 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 April 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Karpov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 6 April 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of country-wide protests against retirement age hike organised by Aleksey Navalnyy on 9 September 2018. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. Jurisdiction

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION

7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and/or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies, and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.

8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009).

9. In the leading cases of 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, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.

11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.

13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 61-65, 13 February 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to administrative escorting to and detention in a police station beyond three hours without any justification; and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, related to the absence of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings governed by the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”).

V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

15. Firstly, the Court considers that, in view of its findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Article 5 of the Convention with regard to their alleged deprivation of liberty and Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings.

16. Furthermore, the Court has examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention.

17. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;

3. Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

6. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 April 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina                     Lətif Hüseynov
Acting Deputy Registrar                   President

_____________

APPENDIX
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 Location

 

Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision

Court Name

Date

Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[i]
1. 11042/19

06/02/2019

Vitaliy Gennadyevich KARPOV

1989

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

09/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled; arrested at 6.40 p.m. on 09/09/2018, detention recorded at 7 p.m., released at 10.07 a.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
2. 12551/19

21/02/2019

Yelena Aeksandrovna GUSEVA

1967

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

11/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 6.50 p.m. on 09/09/2018, detention recorded at 7 p.m., released at 10.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
3. 13234/19

21/02/2019

Sergey Viktorovich MOSALEV

1957

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Ufa

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic

08/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
4. 13767/19

28/02/2019

Sergey Viktorovich BALDIN

1989

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

11/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 6.09 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to police station at 8.50 p.m., released at unknown time on 10/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
5. 14717/19

04/03/2019

Andrey Konstantinovich PYSTOGOV

1996

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Perm

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

community work of 80 hours Perm Regional Court

12/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 5.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to police station at 8.05 p.m., released at 12.45 p.m. on 11/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
6. 14935/19

28/02/2019

Antonina Nikolayevna ANUSHINA

1981

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

detention of 2 days St Petersburg City Court

11/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 6 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to police station at 7.45 p.m., released at 10 a.m. on 11/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

5,000
7. 15041/19

04/03/2019

Dmitriy Vyongovich NGUYEN

1998

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

16/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 5.45 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to a police station at 6.10 p.m., released at 10.07 a.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
8. 15092/19

06/03/2019

Vasiliy Mikhaylovich DANILOV

1989

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Tver

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000 Tver Regional Court

17/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested and brought to police station at 3 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 1.00 a.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
9. 15403/19

11/03/2019

Ivan Konstantinovich SABREKOV

2000

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Perm

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

community work of 50 hours Perm Regional Court

22/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 5.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to police station at 8.55 p.m., released at 3 p.m. on 11/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
10. 15666/19

04/03/2019

Kirill Aleksandrovich STRIKHA

1998

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

detention of 5 days St Petersburg City Court

16/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 5.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to police station at 10.40 p.m., released at 10.25 a.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

5,000
11. 16054/19

11/03/2019

Aleksandr Konstantinovich SABREKOV

1997

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Perm

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

community work of 60 days Perm Regional Court

23/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 5.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to police station at 8.25 p.m., released at 3 p.m. on 11/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
12. 17020/19

15/03/2019

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PROSKURIN

1988

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Lipetsk

 

 

Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Lipetsk Regional Court

18/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 2 of CAO.

4,000
13. 18965/19

11/03/2019

Konstantin Nasyrovich SABREKOV

1964

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Perm

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

community work of 20 hours Perm Regional Court

24/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 5.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to a police station at 8.20 p.m., released at 3 p.m. on 11/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
14. 19087/19

13/03/2019

Dmitriy Anatolyevich KULYASOV

1990

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Lipetsk

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Lipetsk Regional Court

18/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000

 

15. 19617/19

02/04/2019

Mikhail Pavlovich STRIKHAR

1969

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

15/01/2019

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report; detention in excess of three hours: arrested and brought to police station at 4 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 8.50 p.m. according to the Government or at 12.30 a.m. on 10/09/2018 according to the applicant;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
16. 19724/19

01/04/2019

Marina Valeryevna KUNAKH

1971

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

14/02/2019

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 2 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to a police station at 3 p.m., released at 11.17 p.m.;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
17. 19792/19

01/04/2019

Viktor Viktorovich SANZHENAKOV

1974

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Samara

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Samara Regional Court

20/12/2018

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 § 5 of CAO. 3,500
18. 19845/19

02/04/2019

Darya Sergeyevna PLESHAKOVA

1984

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Khabarovsk

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court

23/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
19. 19851/19

02/04/2019

Mariya Aleksandrovna SEMENYUK

1986

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Ekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

12/12/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
20. 19893/19

01/04/2019

Yelena Mikhaylovna KUPRIYANOVA

1991

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

20/12/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 6.27 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to police station at 7 p.m., released in the morning on 10/09/2018 as alleged by the applicant;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
21. 19944/19

02/04/2019

Dmitriy Viktorovich SEMENYUK

1992

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

25/12/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
22. 19958/19

02/04/2018

Sergey Anatolyevich ZAYTSEV

1964

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

25/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 5.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 7 p.m., released late in the evening on that day;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
23. 19999/19

01/04/2019

Anna Vladimirovna BALDINA

1991

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

15/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 6.03 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to a police station at 8.50 p.m., released at 2.45 p.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
24. 20002/19

02/04/2019

Ivan Nikolayevich VOLKOV

1984

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

25/12/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
25. 20029/19

01/04/2019

Ivan Vladimirovich KOCHKIN

1989

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Perm

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court

08/11/2018

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 § 5 of CAO. 3,500
26. 20075/19

01/04/2019

Yevgeniy Valeryevich SVETLOV

1980

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Belgorod

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community work of 40 hours Belgorod Regional Court

29/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
27. 20118/19

01/04/2019

Vadim Borisovich LIVSHITS

1968

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

07/11/2018

 

 

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
28. 20163/19

05/04/2019

Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich CHIRMAN

1992

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Murmansk

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Murmansk Regional Court

19/11/2018

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 § 5 of CAO. 3,500
29. 20257/19

01/04/2019

Vasiliy Mikhaylovich PAVLOV

1994

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Belgorod

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community work of 40 hours Belgorod Regional Court

29/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
30. 20292/19

01/04/2019

Natalya Vyacheslavovna NIKIFOROVA

1970

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO

 

fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

12/12/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
31. 20317/19

02/04/2019

Mariya Nikolayevna KAYGORODOVA

1995

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000 St Petersburg City Court

29/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 5.15 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to a police station at midnight on 10/09/2018 and released at 8 a.m. that day (according to the Government) or after 5 p.m. (according to the applicant);

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
32. 20439/19

02/04/2019

Pavel Borisovich TUDVASEV

1964

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Perm

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

community work of 20 hours Perm Regional Court

16/01/2019

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 § 6.1 of CAO. 3,500
33. 20606/19

01/04/2019

Yuliya Aleksandrovna ZAYTSEVA

1969

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

25/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 3.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 5 p.m. and released at 8.20 a.m. on 10/09/2018 (according to the Government);

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
34. 20615/19

01/04/2019

Kirill Pavlovich FABRITSIYEV

1988

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Volgograd

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court

25/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
35. 20621/19

01/04/2019

Albert Eduardovich MKHITARYAN

1995

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Tyumen

 

 

Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 18,000 Tyumen Regional Court

24/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 1 of CAO.

4,000
36. 20626/19

01/04/2019

Aleksey Aleksandrovich KUPRIYANOV

1991

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

detention of 7 days St Petersburg City Court

08/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested at 6.05 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to police station at 8.50 p.m. and released at 9.50 a.m. on 11/09/2018 (according to the Government);

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

5,000
37. 20911/19

01/04/2019

Olga Viktorovna BALASHOVA

1970

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

 

 

Article 20.2

§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court

11/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty –detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the administrative offence report was compiled: arrested between 5.20 p.m. and 6.10 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 6.50 p.m. and released at 11.30 a.m. on 10/09/2018 (according to the Government);

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 § 6.1 of CAO.

4,000
38. 21103/19

02/04/2019

Ivan Vladimirovich ZHELEZKIN

1986

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

21/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
39. 21108/19

02/04/2019

Andrey Anatolyevich PUZATKIN

1986

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

30/01/2019

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report; detention in excess of three hours: arrested at 4.15 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m. and released at 12.10 a.m. on 10/09/2018 (according to the Government);

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
40. 21177/19

01/04/2019

Vladimir Aleksandrovich TRIFANOV

1959

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

19/02/2019

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report; detention in excess of three hours: arrested and brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released after 12.30 a.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
41. 22409/19

02/04/2019

Stepan Alekseyevich VASILYEV

1994

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

15/01/2019

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report; detention in excess of three hours: arrested at 4 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m., released after 12.30 a.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
42. 25483/19

30/04/2019

Galina Dmitriyevna GLAVURDICH

1967

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Magnitogorsk

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Chelyabinsk Regional Court

01/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
43. 26475/19

08/05/2019

Svyatoslav Sergeyevich ALEKSEYEV

1998

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

21/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
44. 26946/19

08/05/2019

Dmitriy Alekseyevich SEMENKOV

1998

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Murmansk

 

 

Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 150,000 Murmansk Regional Court

06/12/2018

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. 5,000
45. 27967/19

16/05/2019

Marina-Viktoriya Igorevna ARISTOVA

2000

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Murmansk

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Murmansk Regional Court

05/12/2018

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 § 5 of CAO. 3,500
46. 29241/19

21/05/2019

Danyel Sergeyevich VEBER

1997

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

22/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report; detention in excess of three hours: arrested at 2.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 3.20 p.m., released after 12 a.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
47. 29268/19

06/05/2019

Anna Aleksandrovna KULIKOVA

1977

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Murmansk

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Murmansk Regional Court

21/11/2018

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 § 5 of CAO. 3,500
48. 29929/19

24/05/2019

Aleksandr Anatolyevich KULAKOV

1983

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court

18/12/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report; detention in excess of three hours: arrested at 4.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m., released at 9.49 p.m.;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
49. 30043/19

25/05/2019

Timur Alfredovich VALIULLIN

2001

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Khabarovsk

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Khabarovsk Regional Court

26/12/2018

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000
50. 33304/19

10/06/2019

Vadim Yevgenyevich PEKHOV

1979

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

 

 

Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Region Court

16/01/2019

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report; detention in excess of three hours: arrested at 4 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 4.20 p.m., released after 1.15 a.m. on 10/09/2018;

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 § 5 of CAO.

4,000

[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *