{"id":20645,"date":"2023-03-23T11:56:31","date_gmt":"2023-03-23T11:56:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20645"},"modified":"2023-03-23T11:56:31","modified_gmt":"2023-03-23T11:56:31","slug":"case-of-rogachev-and-others-v-russia-64754-14-and-19-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20645","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ROGACHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 64754\/14 and 19 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF ROGACHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 64754\/14 and 19 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 Rogachev 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 Government\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 participants of public assemblies. They 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 participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

7. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevi\u010dius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.\u00a037553\/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552\/01, ECHR\u00a02006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482\/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 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.<\/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 interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly was 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. The 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well\u2011established case-law (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful administrative arrest, and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences).<\/p>\n

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

12. In view of its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by some of the applicants in relation to other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings.<\/p>\n

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

13. 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

14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Saidov v. Russia [Committee], no. 31872\/19, \u00a7\u00a023, 26 July 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 concerning the right to peaceful assembly and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings,<\/p>\n

3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention concerning the right to peaceful assembly;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under 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 \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(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)<\/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
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

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

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

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

Administrative charges<\/strong><\/td>\nPenalty<\/strong><\/td>\nFinal domestic decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

Court Name<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Other complaints under well\u2011established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount 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>\n64754\/14<\/p>\n

16\/09\/2014<\/td>\n

Mikhail Borisovich ROGACHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1952<\/td>\n

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

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

Manifestation against the war in Ukraine<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n

10\/09\/2014<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest on 16\/03\/2014; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on 10\/09\/2014<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n54040\/17<\/p>\n

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

Ivan Sergeyevich DOLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Tula<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nTula 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 basis – unlawful and disproportionate administrative escorting and arrest on 26\/03\/2017 (it was possible to draw up a record on the spot; detention over 3\u00a0hours in breach of Article \u00a7\u00a027.5 CAO),<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Tula Regional Court on 26\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n79261\/17<\/p>\n

02\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Anatoliy Vladimirovich MAKAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nizhny Novgorod<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB 500 and RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

03\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested at 2.40\u00a0p.m. on 26\/03\/2017, brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence; released on the following day at 1.05 p.m.<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n79264\/17<\/p>\n

02\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Vladislav Gennadyevich POPOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nizhny Novgorod<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO,<\/p>\n

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 and RUB\u00a0500, respectively<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

23\/05\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

04\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested at 2.40\u00a0p.m. on 26\/03\/2017, brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence; released on the following day at 1.05 p.m.<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n80804\/17<\/p>\n

16\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Andreyevich KRYUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

17\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 4.10 p.m. during the assembly; brought to the police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest; released on the same day at 9 p.m.; the issue of the detention was examined by the appeal court,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – prosecuting party absent in administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 17\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n80808\/17<\/p>\n

16\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Vladimir Aleksandrovich MICHUROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1965<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption demonstration<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

17\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 4.10 p.m. during the assembly; brought to the police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest; released on the same day at 9 p.m.; the issue of the detention was examined by the appeal court,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 17\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n285\/18<\/p>\n

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

Pavel Sergeyevich DEGTEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 2.10 p.m. during the assembly; brought to the police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest; released on the same day at 7.30 p.m.; the issue of the detention was examined by the appeal court,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n2443\/18<\/p>\n

08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Eduard Yuryevich BESHLIYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n2455\/18<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Eduard Georgiyevich CHUPROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

08\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – Unrecorded detention for four hours on 26\/03\/2017, raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 08\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n2471\/18<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

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

1990<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/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 on 26\/03\/2017 during the manifestation for the sole purpose of drawing up a record, issue examined by the appeal court,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n2474\/18<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Yelena Vasilyevna AYBAZOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

01\/06\/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 on 26\/03\/2017 during the manifestation for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence, issue examined by the appeal court,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 01\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n2478\/18<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

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

1983<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/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 on 26\/03\/2017 during the manifestation for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence, issue examined by the appeal court,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n2483\/18<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Alekseyevich OSTAPETS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/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 on 26\/03\/2017 during the manifestation for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence, issue examined by the appeal court,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n2489\/18<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Natalya Valeryevna REZONTOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 07\/09\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n2568\/18<\/p>\n

08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksey Nikolayevich MAKEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – applicant arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 4.10 p.m. during the manifestation, taken to the police station to draw up a record of administrative offence and was released at approximately 9 p.m. on the same day; raised that complaint in the administrative proceedings,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n2569\/18<\/p>\n

08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Vladislav Igorevich BELOGLAZOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicant was arrested on 26\/03\/2017 during the manifestation, at approximately 4.10 p.m., and taken to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence; he was released at approximately 9 p.m. on the same day, the complaint was raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n2570\/18<\/p>\n

08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

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

1990<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

13\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings: Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 13\/09\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n11462\/18<\/p>\n

07\/02\/2018<\/td>\n

Sergey Andreyevich LUNTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

Ratnikova Svetlana Sergeyevna<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Collection of appeals to the President of Russia<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

29\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n12896\/18<\/p>\n

09\/03\/2018<\/td>\n

Anastasiya Sergeyevna GROMYKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Dobralskiy Aleksandr Igorevich<\/p>\n

Kaliningrad<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Leninskiy Avenue, Kaliningrad<\/p>\n

12\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nKaliningrad Regional Court<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2017 (received on 26\/09\/2017)<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings: Final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court on 07\/09\/2017 (received on 26\/09\/2017)<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n17280\/18<\/p>\n

20\/03\/2018<\/td>\n

Denis Vladimirovich ZUTIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption demonstration<\/p>\n

Moscow, Pushkin square<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings: Moscow City Court on 10\/10\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

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