Last Updated on November 23, 2023 by LawEuro
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.
In the earlier cases against Russia, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that (1) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period, or (2) “escorting” to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation, or (3) continued deprivation of liberty after an offence record has been compiled, have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 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 on 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Full text of the document.
European Court of Human Rights
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SAVELYEVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 83654/17 and 18 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Savelyevy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some 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. As to locus standi of Ms Savelyeva
7. Following the death of Mr Savelyev (application no. 83654/17), Ms Savelyeva, his widow and the first applicant, expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf. The Government did not comment.
8. The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII).
9. In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Savelyeva has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For convenience, it will, however, continue to refer to Mr Savelyev as the applicant in the present judgment.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention
10. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
11. The Court reiterates that that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).
12. In the earlier cases against Russia, the Court has consistently held that (1) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), or (2) “escorting” to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019, and Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 34, 2 July 2019), or (3) continued deprivation of liberty after an offence record has been compiled (see ibid., § 35), have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention.
13. 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 on 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).
14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
15. 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well‑established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38‑42, 8 October 2019, concerning delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal; 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; Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 44-65, concerning right not to be tried or punished twice; and Yartsev v. Russia, no. 16683/17, §§ 22-38, 20 July 2021, concerning restrictions on the right to freedom of expression).
16. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers 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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares that Ms Savelyeva (application no. 83654/17) has standing to pursue the application in the late applicant’s, Mr Savelyev’s, stead;
4. Declares the applications admissible;
5. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);
6. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);
7. Holds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;
8. 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 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
Acting Deputy Registrar President
______________
APPENDIX
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 | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 83654/17
30/11/2017 |
Irina Grigoryevna SAVELYEVA
1955
Aleksandr Nikolayevich SAVELYEV 1955 Deceased in 2018 Heir: Irina Grigoryevna SAVELYEVA 1955 |
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg |
12/06/2017, 2 p.m. | 12/06/2017, 8.30 p.m. (first applicant) and 9.20 p.m. (second applicant) | Applicants taken to the police station as administrative suspects: 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 – proceedings under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021, fine of RUB 10,000; and proceedings under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO; final: St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021; fine RUB500,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – convicted twice for participation in one public event – 1) proceedings under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021, fine of RUB 10,000; and 2) proceedings under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO; final – St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021; fine RUB500 |
3,900 |
| 2. | 3353/18
18/12/2017 |
Maksim Olegovich GOLIKOV
1982 |
Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich
St Petersburg |
12/06/2017, 2.10 p.m. | 13/06/2017, 4.30 p.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: 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 decisions taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 04/07/2017 (fine of RUB 10,000) and on 20/06/2017 (6 days’ administrative arrest),
Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was punished twice for essentially the same actions under article 19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention for 6 days), article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (administrative fine of RUB 10,000) |
3,900 |
| 3. | 3643/18
27/12/2017 |
Irina Ilgizovna GILMANOVA
1996 |
Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich
St Petersburg |
12/06/2017 | 13/06/2017 | 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: 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 – St Petersburg City Court, 22/08/2017; fine of RUB 5,000,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: convictions under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, and under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO – by the St Petersburg City Court on 22/08/2017 |
3,900 |
| 4. | 3698/18
18/12/2017 |
German Zalkovich BERSON
1948 |
Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich
St Petersburg |
12/06/2017 | 13/06/2017 | 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: 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 –
St Petersburg City Court, 25/07/2017, fine of RUB 10,000, Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: convictions under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO and under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO by the St Petersburg City Court on 25/07/2017 |
3,900 |
| 5. | 12066/18
03/03/2018 |
Aleksey Konstantinovich TSAREV
1989 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
26/03/2017, 3.40 p.m. | 27/03/2017, 3.30 p.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: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/09/2017, fine of RUB 10,000; | 3,900 |
| 6. | 22836/18
08/05/2018 |
German Yevgenyevich FLEGONTOV
1997 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
12/06/2017, 6.10 p.m. | 13/06/2017,
10 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: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/04/2018, fine of RUB 10,000 | 3,900 |
| 7. | 23662/18
09/05/2018 |
Aleksandr Viktorovich TETERYA
1966 |
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow |
02/11/2017, 10.45 p.m. | 03/11/2017,
2 p.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: 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 taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/11/2017, sentenced to 14 days’ administrative detention | 3,900 |
| 8. | 24195/18
08/05/2018 |
Artem Gennadyevich IVANKIN
1982 |
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow |
05/11/2017 | 07/11/2017 | 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 – final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/11/2017, sentenced to 14 days’ administrative detention,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 07/11/2017 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO |
3,900 |
| 9. | 24457/18
14/05/2018 |
Egor Pavlovich NEKHOROSHEV
1990 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
05/11/2017, 1.30 p.m. | 06/11/2017, 3 p.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: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision taken on 26/03/2018; convicted under Art. 19.3 of the CAO | 3,900 |
| 10. | 7642/22
13/01/2022 |
Natalya Aleksandrovna BURMAKINA
1983 |
Fedotova Yuliya Yevgenyevna
Yekaterinburg |
25/11/2021, 10.30 p.m. | 28/11/2021, 7.10 p.m. | Unjustified length of detention with a view to transferring the applicant to an investigator (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 83, 26 June 2018),
Detention without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 82, 26 June 2018) |
3,000 | |
| 11. | 7872/22
27/01/2022 |
Sergey Aleksandrovich NIKOLAYCHENKO
1978 |
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana
Strasbourg |
28/07/2021, 12 p.m. | 28/07/2021, 9.20 p.m. | Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018) | 3,000 | |
| 12. | 8399/22
10/01/2022 |
Rustem Galimullovich GAYFULLIN
1986 |
Kabirov Rushan Rafisovich
Kazan |
10/08/2021 | 11/08/2021 | 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), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – administrative detention of 3 days, imposed by the final decision on 08/09/2021 by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 11/08/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO |
3,900 |
| 13. | 46147/22
15/09/2022 |
Mikhail Nikolayevich PIDENKO
1986 |
15/04/2022 | 16/04/2022, until the court hearing | 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: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in respect of two sets of administrative proceedings: final decisions taken by the Stavropol Regional Court on 18/05/2022 (sentenced to 2 days’ administrative detention) and on 15/06/2022 (ordered to pay an administrative fine of RUB 40,000),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the applicant started serving his sentence of administrative detention (see above) before the appeal judgment was delivered, Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – between 28/02/2022 and 10/03/2922 the applicant continuously posted various photos and videos on his page in Instagram calling upon others not to trust the official version of the events in Ukraine. On 15/04/2022 and 18/04/2022 administrative offence records under Art. 20.3.3 of the CAO were drawn up in respect of the applicant. On 16/04/2022 and 04/05/2022 the Georgiyevsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a 2 days’ administrative detention and a fine of RUB 40,000 respectively. Upheld by the Stavropol Regional Court on 18/05/2022 and 15/06/2022 |
5,000 | |
| 14. | 54402/22
03/11/2022 |
Anastasiya Andreyevna MINASOVA
1994 |
Akopyan Narek Gurgenovich
Vidnoye |
03/03/2022,
9 p.m. |
04/03/2022, 1.54 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) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Moscow City Court, 05/09/2022, fine of RUB 15,000 | 3,900 |
| 15. | 54409/22
19/10/2022 |
Anton Viktorovich DYATLOV
1997 |
Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna
Moscow |
02/04/2022, 12.06 p.m. | 02/04/2022, 5.29 p.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: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Omsk Regional Court, 21/06/2022, fine of RUB 50,000,
Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events – calls for participations in the demonstration in Omsk on 02/04/2022 against the war in Ukraine, conviction under Art. 20.3.3 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 50,000, by the final decision of 21/06/2022 by the Omsk Regional Court |
5,000 |
| 16. | 286/23
25/11/2022 |
Valeriya Sergeyevna PANFEROVA
1998 |
Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich
Nizhniy Novgorod |
06/05/2022, 1 p.m. | 06/05/2022, 6 p.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: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 28/07/2022, fine of RUB 30,000 | 3,900 |
| 17. | 843/23
29/11/2022 |
Aleksey Yuryevich KHOLODAREV
1976 |
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg |
10/08/2022 | 10/08/2022 | 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) | Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression:
(1) On 24/02/2022 the applicant published a post against President Putin on Facebook. On 01/07/2022 he was convicted under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO (public actions aimed at discrediting the Russian Armed Forces) and ordered to pay a fine of RUB 40,000. On 08/09/2022 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision; (2) On 05/03/2017 the applicant published in Internet (Vkontakte platform) a video allegedly containing symbols of an extremist organisation de-registered in Russia (movement of Navalnyy Headquarters). On 10/08/2022 the applicant was convicted under Art. 20.3 § 1 of the CAO and sentenced to 14 days’ administrative detention. On 15/08/2022 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision; (3) Conviction under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for publishing anti-war posts on Facebook on 26/04/2022, fine of RUB 40,000, final decision – Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 01/12/2022, Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in respect of all sets of proceedings, Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 10/08/2022 was executed immediately |
6,000 |
| 18. | 1070/23
19/12/2022 |
Roman Dmitriyevich SOLOVYEV
2002 |
Petrova Polina Artemovna
Moscow |
27/02/2022, 4.35 p.m. | 28/02/2022, 1.20 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) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Moscow City Court, 19/08/2022, fine of RUB 15,000 | 3,900 |
| 19. | 1891/23
08/12/2022 |
Anna Aleksandrovna BOYKOVA
1982 |
Simonov Maksim Vitalyevich
Voskresenskiy |
27/02/2022, 4.30 p.m. | 28/02/2022, 1 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: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) | Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Moscow City Court, 09/08/2022, fine of RUB 10,000 | 3,900 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply