Last Updated on November 9, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers 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.
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”. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
Read the entire document.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MAZUROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 984/15 and 23 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mazurova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 October 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 public assemblies. Some of them 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 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 and its Protocols, 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 these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 489, 7 February 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, related to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 178‑88, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention; Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62-65, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. The applicants in application no. 984/15 raised complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
15. Some other applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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 the 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 Article 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of application no. 984/15 inadmissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto 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;
(a) 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 9 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
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 | Name of the public event
Location Date |
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. | 984/15
26/12/2014 |
1) Olga Mikhaylovna MAZUROVA
1960 2) Anna Valentinovna ANNENKOVA 1980 3) Niks Neytan NEMENI 1988
|
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Perm |
Rally in support of the Russian LGBT community
Moscow 07/02/2014 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fines of RUB 5,000, 15,000 and 20,000, respectively in relation to the three applicants | Moscow City Court, 26/06/2014, 02/07/2014 and
14/07/2014, respectively |
In respect of 2nd and 3rd applicants:
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 8.15 p.m. to 11.35 p.m. on 07/02/2014 |
3,000 (to applicant Mazurova)
5,000 (to applicant Annenkova) 5,000 (to applicant Nemeni) |
| 2. | 19096/21
23/03/2021 |
Viktor Kosto GRIVACHAUSKAS
1973 |
|
Rally against the constitutional amendments
Moscow
22/06/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court
24/09/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty:
1) escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.00 p.m. to 11.40 p.m. on 26/06/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 06/07/2020, 2) escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 12.10 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. on 11/10/2020; Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court, 24/09/2020 and 07/06/2021; Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – solo picketing on 11/10/2020, in Moscow, administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 07/06/2021 |
5,000 |
| 3. | 23107/21
12/04/2021 |
Natalya Yuryevna KOCHUGOVA
1977 |
Sidelnikova Polina Aleksandrovna
Vladivostok |
Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal
Vladivostok
01/08/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Primorye Regional Court
15/12/2020 |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings – final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 15/12/2020 | 4,000 |
| 4. | 24124/21
13/04/2021 |
Mariya Nikolayevna PONOMARENKO
1978 |
|
Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region Mr S. Furgal
Barnaul
08/08/2020 |
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Altay Regional Court
13/10/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”:
– from 11.20 a.m. on 22/08/2020 to 24/08/2020, after the administrative record was drawn up and until the court hearing, – from 7.00 p.m. on 16/06/2021 to 12.00 a.m. on 17/06/2021, Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Altay Regional Court, 13/10/2020 and 25/08/2021; Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events – conviction for having made calls on 20/04/2021 to participate in an unauthorised public event scheduled for 21/04/2021, art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, fine of RUB 75,000. Final decision: Altay regional Court, 25/08/2021 |
5,500 |
| 5. | 24864/21
20/04/2021 |
Nikolay Andreyevich NIKOLAYEV
1998 |
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna |
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow 31/01/2021 |
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | administrative detention of 14 days | Moscow City Court
12/02/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021;
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, 12/02/2021 |
5,000 |
| 6. | 26904/21
08/05/2021 |
Oksana Viktorovna KURAKOVA
1986 |
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul |
Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal
Irkutsk 08/08/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Irkutsk Regional Court
18/11/2020 |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court, 18/11/2020 | 4,000 |
| 7. | 26949/21
17/05/2021 |
Aleksandr Andreyevich RASSOKHIN
1990 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
Rally in support of Mr I. Safronov
Moscow 13/07/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court
08/12/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention from 2.15 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 13/07/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 21/07/2020;
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, 08/12/2020 |
5,000 |
| 8. | 27420/21
04/05/2021 |
Dmitriy Valeryevich LANETS
1975 |
Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich
Khabarovsk |
Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal
Khabarovsk 10/10/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | two fines of RUB 15,000 each | Khabarovsk Regional Court, 05/11/2020 and
10/11/2020 |
Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for his participation in the same public event of 10/10/2020 – under art. 20.2 § 5 and under art. 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO (respective final decisions: Khabarovsk regional Court, 05/11/2020 and 10/11/2020) | 4,000 |
| 9. | 28256/21
30/04/2021 |
Diana Vladimirovna LUKA
1987 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal
Khabarovsk 15/09/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Khabarovsk Regional Court
10/11/2020 |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Khabarovsk Regional Court, 10/11/2020 | 4,000 |
| 10. | 28259/21
30/04/2021 |
Andrey Aleksandrovich LATALIN
1981 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
Rally in support of Mr N. Platoshkin
Moscow
25/07/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000 | Moscow City Court
26/11/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.00 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. on 25/07/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 06/08/2020;
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, 26/11/2020 |
5,000 |
| 11. | 28549/21
02/06/2021 |
Anton Viktorovich KOSYY
1989 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
Rally in support of Mr. A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021 |
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | administrative detention of 15 days | Moscow City Court
05/02/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.15 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 00. 35 a.m. on 01/02/2021
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, 05/02/2021 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
|
5,500 |
| 12. | 28558/21
17/05/2021 |
Tatyana Gennadyevna LARICHEVA
1976 |
Eysmont Mariya Olegovna
Moscow |
Rally against the constitutional amendments
Moscow 15/07/2020 |
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court
18/11/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 07.30 p.m. on 15/07/2020 to 03.00 a.m. on 16/07/2020
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, 18/11/2020 |
4,000 |
| 13. | 28568/21
19/05/2021 |
Aleksey Gennadyevich FILIMONOV
1970 |
Fedotova Yuliya
Yekaterinburg |
Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal
Khabarovsk 10/10/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 15,000 | Khabarovsk Regional Court
24/11/2020 |
3,500 | |
| 14. | 28608/21
20/05/2021 |
Taisiya Lvovna BEKBULATOVA
1991 |
Gamazov Alan Olegovich
Moscow |
Rally in support of Mr I. Safronov
Moscow 13/07/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court
20/11/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 13/07/2020;
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, 20/11/2020 |
5,000 |
| 15. | 29831/21
15/05/2021 |
Anatoliy Ivanovich KOSTENKO
1951 |
Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich
Nizhniy Tagil |
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Yekaterinburg 31/01/2021 Political rally Yekaterinburg 06/03/2022 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO |
fine of RUB 15,000
administrative detention of 30 days |
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
14/04/2021
Sverdlovsk Regional Court 16/03/2022 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”:
– from 1.50 p.m. to 5.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021, – from 2.50 p.m. 06/03/2022 to 07/03/2022, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case; Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO |
5,500 |
| 16. | 30314/21
18/05/2021 |
Pavel Sergeyevich VERTIKOV
2001 |
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow |
Rally against the constitutional amendments
Moscow 15/07/2020 |
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | fine of RUB 20,000 | Moscow City Court
18/11/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 9.30 p.m. on 15/07/2020 to 3.30 a.m. on 16/07/2020;
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, 18/11/2020
|
5,000 |
| 17. | 30337/21
17/05/2021 |
Anna Aleksandrovna VASILYEVA
1995 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
Rally in support of Mr I. Safronov
Moscow 13/07/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Moscow City Court
02/12/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.30 p.m. to 5.50 p.m. on 13/07/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 22/07/2020;
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, 02/12/2020 |
5,000 |
| 18. | 30585/21
13/05/2021 |
Yevgeniy Valentinovich BAKHOTSKIY
1970 |
Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk |
Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal
Krasnoyarsk 15/08/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 13,000 | Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
19/11/2020 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.40 p.m. 15/08/2020 to 2.00 p.m. on 17/08/2020;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19/11/2020 |
5,000 |
| 19. | 31158/21
22/05/2021 |
Oksana Vladimirovna SERGEYEVA
1973 |
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod |
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Velikiy Novgorod 23/01/2021 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Novgorod Regional Court
05/03/2021 |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 05/03/2021 | 4,000 |
| 20. | 31379/21
12/05/2021 |
Vasiliy Dodiyevich VAYSENBERG
1983 |
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul |
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow 23/01/2021 |
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | administrative detention of 5 days | Moscow City Court
30/03/2021 |
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, 30/03/2021;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO |
4,000 |
| 21. | 31526/21
24/05/2021 |
Diana Yevgenyevna YADRYSHNIKOVA
1985 |
Ruchko Irina Yuryevna
Yekaterinburg |
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Yekaterinburg 31/01/2021 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | 25 hours of community works | Sverdlovsk Regional Court
31/03/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 | 5,000 |
| 22. | 32172/21
11/06/2021 |
Andrey Mikhaylovich YEPIFANOVSKIY
2002 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Tula
23/01/2021 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Tula Regional Court
09/03/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.50 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Tula Regional Court, 09/03/2021 |
5,000 |
| 23. | 32196/21
25/05/2021 |
Olga Nikolayevna LAZARENKO
1974 |
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg |
Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal
Poyarkovo village, Amur Region 23/07/2020 |
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO | fine of RUB 10,000 | Amur Regional Court
07/12/2020 |
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Amur Regional Court, 07/12/2020 | 4,000 |
| 24. | 32666/21
24/05/2021 |
Shamil Ramilevich VALISHIN
1999 |
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna |
Rally in support of Mr. A. Navalnyy
Moscow 31/01/2021 |
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO | administrative detention of 12 days | Moscow City Court
12/02/2021 |
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case;
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, 12/02/2021 |
5,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply