{"id":20639,"date":"2023-03-23T11:17:25","date_gmt":"2023-03-23T11:17:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20639"},"modified":"2023-03-23T11:17:25","modified_gmt":"2023-03-23T11:17:25","slug":"case-of-kudryashova-and-others-v-russia-2606-12-and-29-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20639","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF KUDRYASHOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 2606\/12 and 29 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and participants of public assemblies.<\/p>\n

\n

FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF KUDRYASHOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 2606\/12 and 29 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n23 March 2023<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Kudryashova and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nL\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov, President,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107,
\nErik Wennerstr\u00f6m, judges,<\/p>\n

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 2 March 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a011 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

Article\u00a011<\/p>\n

\u201c1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.<\/p>\n

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.\u201d<\/p>\n

7. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevi\u010dius and Others v.\u00a0Lithuania\u00a0[GC], no.\u00a037553\/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552\/01, ECHR 2006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no.\u00a033482\/06, 31\u00a0March 2009).<\/p>\n

8. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568\/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204\/11, 4\u00a0December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613\/07, 3\u00a0October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

9. 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\u2019 freedom of assembly were not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. 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\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

12. 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, \u00a7\u00a7 61-65, 13\u00a0February 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 34-36, 8\u00a0October 2019, as to administrative escorting to and detention in a police station beyond three hours without any justification; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a058-85, 20\u00a0September 2016, related to the absence of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings governed by the Code of Administrative Offences (\u201cthe CAO\u201d); Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0179-91, 10\u00a0April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38-42, 8\u00a0October 2019, regarding the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.<\/p>\n

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

13. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n

14. The Court firstly notes that, in view of its findings in paragraphs 10 and 12 above, it considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Article\u00a06 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative\u2011offence proceedings.<\/p>\n

15. The Court has further 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\u00a034 and\u00a035 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n

16. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

17. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], no.\u00a025809\/17 and 14 others, \u00a7 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. 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,\u00a0finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

4. 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);<\/p>\n

5. Holds<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 March 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

___________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
\n(restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nName of the<\/strong> public event<\/strong><\/p>\n

Location<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date <\/strong><\/td>\n

Administrative charges<\/strong><\/td>\nPenalty<\/strong><\/td>\nFinal domestic decision<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nOther complaints under<\/strong><\/p>\n

well-established<\/strong><\/p>\n

case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

1.<\/td>\n2606\/12<\/p>\n

21\/12\/2011<\/td>\n

Nadezhda Nikolayevna KUDRYASHOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1957<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nPicket in defence of children\u2019s rights<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/p>\n

16\/03\/2011<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 1,000<\/td>\nZheleznodorozhniy District Court of Barnaul<\/p>\n

23\/06\/2011<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n58416\/12<\/p>\n

16\/08\/2012<\/td>\n

Nikolay Nikolayevich DIDYUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1956<\/p>\n

Mikhail Mikhaylovich STETSENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy d\u2019Anjou<\/td>\n

Picket near the regional prosecutor\u2019s office<\/p>\n

18\/10\/2011<\/p>\n

(Mr Didyuk)<\/p>\n

20\/10\/2011 (Mr Stetsenko)<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/p>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 500<\/p>\n

administrative fine of RUB 500<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Syktyvkar Town Court<\/p>\n

16\/02\/2012<\/p>\n

Syktyvkar Town Court<\/p>\n

20\/02\/2012<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n60753\/12<\/p>\n

03\/09\/2012<\/td>\n

Oleg Vasilyevich SHEIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nMarch in defence of human rights<\/p>\n

Astrakhan<\/p>\n

12\/06\/2012<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nKirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan 18\/07\/2012<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n35006\/13<\/p>\n

20\/05\/2013<\/td>\n

Kseniya Vladimirovna ZHIKHAREVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Picket in support of Belorussian photographers<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/12\/2012<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nBasmannyy District Court of Moscow 11\/03\/2013<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n35026\/13<\/p>\n

20\/05\/2013<\/td>\n

Fedor Andreyevich YEZEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Opposition manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

15\/12\/2012<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow Regional Court<\/p>\n

14\/03\/2013<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n35037\/13<\/p>\n

26\/04\/2013<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Viktorovich SAMSONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Picket in support of prisoners\u2019 rights<\/p>\n

Samara<\/p>\n

30\/10\/2012<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nPromyshlennyy District Court of Samara<\/p>\n

15\/01\/2013<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2\u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n68982\/14<\/p>\n

10\/10\/2014<\/td>\n

Sergey Vladimirovich SOROKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1958<\/td>\n

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy d\u2019Anjou<\/td>\n

Manifestation against the annexation of Crimea<\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

16\/03\/2014<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Komi Republic 04\/06\/2014<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n23054\/17<\/p>\n

16\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Tatyana Aleksandrovna MIKHAYLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1954<\/td>\n

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

Spontaneous assembly against violation of environmental legislation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

14\/06\/2016<\/td>\n

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 1,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court 14\/11\/2016<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO;<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis – arrest and detention of the applicant at the police station on 14\/06\/2016 between 1.30 p.m. and<\/p>\n

5 p.m.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n39263\/17<\/p>\n

26\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksey Viktorovich TABALOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Chelyabinsk<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 3 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\nChelyabinsk Regional Court 11\/04\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 3 of CAO;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal \u2013<\/p>\n

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.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n40037\/17<\/p>\n

25\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Sergey Trofimovich MARYIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1955<\/td>\n

Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich<\/p>\n

Melekhovo<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Saransk<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Mordovia Republic 02\/05\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4.05 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017 to 8.30 a.m. on 27\/03\/2017 with no justification;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n54016\/17<\/p>\n

17\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Ilyas Rashadovich ABBASOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nVolgograd Regional Court<\/p>\n

25\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 arrest and escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. with no justification;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n63765\/17<\/p>\n

18\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Muradin Murdinovich ZHANE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Krasnodar<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

06\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 at 3.10 p.m. for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n63817\/17<\/p>\n

18\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Vasilyevich KRUCHENYUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Krasnodar<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4.40 p.m. to<\/p>\n

8.40 p.m. with no justification;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal \u2013<\/p>\n

the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n70000\/17<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

62596\/19<\/p>\n

19\/11\/2019<\/td>\n

Timofey Borisovich FILATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Magnitogorsk<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Manifestation against construction of the cathedral<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

16\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 8 of CAO<\/td>\n

community service of<\/p>\n

24 hours<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative detention of 15 days<\/td>\n

Chelyabinsk Regional Court 28\/06\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

21\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: under Article 20.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO and Article 20.2 \u00a7 8 of CAO;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal \u2013<\/p>\n

the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court on 16\/05\/2019 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n70385\/17<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Artur Aleksandrovich DAVYDENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich<\/p>\n

Melekhovo<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nVolgograd Regional Court 28\/04\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 arrest and escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4.40 p.m. to 8.40 p.m. with no justification;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n70392\/17<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Nikita Vladimirovich STASYUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nPrimorye Regional Court<\/p>\n

04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n70456\/17<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Mariya Aleksandrovna ZARUDNYAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nVolgograd Regional Court 11\/05\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 4 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. with no justification;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n70523\/17<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Lyubov Aleksandrovna ZARUDNYAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nVolgograd Regional Court 10\/05\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 4 p.m. to 7.44 p.m. with no justification;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n71070\/17<\/p>\n

18\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Ravil Shamilevich SHIGAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Krasnodar<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

06\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 2.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. with no justification;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n71120\/17<\/p>\n

18\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Andrey Vladimirovich CHUPYSHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Krasnodar<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 15 days<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

06\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 escorting to the police station at 6 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n73801\/17<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Maksim Aleksandrovich NAZARENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nVolgograd Regional Court<\/p>\n

26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 escorting to the police station at 4 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record, detention in the police station from was detained from<\/p>\n

4 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. without any justification;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n75249\/17<\/p>\n

19\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Mikhail Olegovich IZOTKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nVolgograd Regional Court 25\/04\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n75327\/17<\/p>\n

19\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Vladimirovich RUDNEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nVolgograd Regional Court<\/p>\n

25\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n75523\/17<\/p>\n

19\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Kirill Yuryevich MELESHKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nVolgograd Regional Court 26\/04\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n78273\/17<\/p>\n

03\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Igor Alekseyevich IVANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nVolgograd Regional Court<\/p>\n

02\/05\/2017 (decision received on 15\/05\/2017)<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n79125\/17<\/p>\n

01\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Maksim Anatolyevich FEDOROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Social march<\/p>\n

Samara<\/p>\n

23\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 3 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 30,000<\/td>\nSamara Regional Court<\/p>\n

22\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 3 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n83359\/17<\/p>\n

04\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Georgiy Aleksandrovich SPIRIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Gatchina<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 5,000<\/td>\nLeningrad Regional Court<\/p>\n

05\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n83408\/17<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Yuryevich YURCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nTsentralniy District Court of Volgograd 07\/06\/2017<\/p>\n

(appeal court because the applicant was a minor)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n3954\/18<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PROKOPENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Demonstration against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

30\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal<\/p>\n

basis \u2013 escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 6.10 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. with no justification;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n