{"id":20653,"date":"2023-03-23T12:35:55","date_gmt":"2023-03-23T12:35:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20653"},"modified":"2023-03-23T12:35:55","modified_gmt":"2023-03-23T12:35:55","slug":"case-of-askerov-and-others-v-russia-1712-20-and-20-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20653","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ASKEROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 1712\/20 and 20 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF ASKEROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 1712\/20 and 20 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 Askerov 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

1. 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 applicants were represented by Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation practicing in Moscow.<\/p>\n

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

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

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

5. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies, namely the manifestations for fair elections to the Moscow City Parliament in summer 2019 in Moscow. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

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

6. 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

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

7. 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 their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article\u00a011 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. 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<\/p>\n

2006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482\/06, 31\u00a0March 2009).<\/p>\n

9. 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 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article\u00a035 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v.\u00a0Georgia\u00a0(dec.), nos.\u00a06232\/20 and 22394\/20, \u00a7\u00a7 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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

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

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

12. 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.<\/p>\n

13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a063-65, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-23, 10 April 2018; Kalyapin v. Russia, no. 6095\/09, \u00a7\u00a076, 23\u00a0July 2019; and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 34-36, 8\u00a0October 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events; and Karelin v. Russia, no.\u00a0926\/08, 20\u00a0September 2016, related to examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)).<\/p>\n

4. Remaining complaints<\/strong><\/p>\n

14. The applicants further raised additional complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative\u2011offence proceedings. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.<\/p>\n

15. The applicants in applications nos. 8167\/20 and 8198\/20 also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court 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 do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

16. 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

17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, recently, Savelov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a062815\/10 and 5 others, 1 December 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

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

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

2. Declares the complaints concerning the dispersal of the public assemblies and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative offence proceedings, and declares the remainder of applications nos.\u00a08167\/20 and 8198\/20 inadmissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the public assemblies;<\/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 \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\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

Date of the manifestation for fair elections in Moscow<\/strong><\/td>\nAdministrative charges<\/strong><\/td>\nPenalty<\/strong><\/td>\nFinal decision:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moscow City Court,<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Other complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

1.<\/td>\n1712\/20<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

Elmir Akper ogly ASKEROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

18\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.40 p.m. on 03\/08\/2019 to 2.00 a.m. on 04\/08\/2019; the applicant remained in detention even after the record had been completed;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 18\/10\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n1801\/20<\/p>\n

18\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

Konstantin Sergeyevich LEVIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

26\/08\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.50 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 00.15 a.m. on 28\/07\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 26\/08\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n1823\/20<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

Nikolay Anatolyevich NIKULSHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

02\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 3.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 03\/08\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 02\/10\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n7023\/20<\/p>\n

30\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

Bogdan Igorevich SHUMSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 12,000<\/td>\n

04\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 3.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 03\/08\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 04\/10\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n8167\/20<\/p>\n

29\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Konstantin Yuryevich ZHAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

30\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 5.00 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 12.30 a.m. on 29\/07\/2019, until the hearing on the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 30\/10\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n8198\/20<\/p>\n

29\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Grigoriy Iosifovich KLEMENTYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

16\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 8.00 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 10.00.p.m on 29\/07\/2019, till the hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 16\/10\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n8319\/20<\/p>\n

03\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GALKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 12,000<\/td>\n

08\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 08\/10\/2019;<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 9.00 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 00.25 a.m. on 28\/07\/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 30\/07\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n8324\/20<\/p>\n

03\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

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

1990<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

04\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 6.30 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 04.20 a.m. on 28\/07\/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 02\/08\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 04\/10\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n8333\/20<\/p>\n

03\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Maksim Olegovich YAKOVLEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

28\/08\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 5.10 p.m. to 11.10 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 28\/08\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n10255\/20<\/p>\n

13\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

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

(former KULIKOV)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

12\/11\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) \u2013 escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 12\/11\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n10262\/20<\/p>\n

13\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Maksim Olegovich MASHKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

22\/11\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.40 p.m. to 20.40 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 22\/11\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n12149\/20<\/p>\n

27\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Mikhail Yuryevich GAMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 20,000<\/td>\n

04\/09\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.25 p.m. on 03\/08\/2019 to 02.30 p.m. on 04\/08\/2019; the applicant remained in detention even after the record had been completed;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 04\/09\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n14030\/20<\/p>\n

28\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Mikhaylovich ALEKSANIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 2<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 20,000<\/td>\n

28\/08\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.00 p.m. on 03\/08\/2019 to 01.00 p.m. on 04\/08\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 28\/08\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n24876\/20<\/p>\n

22\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

Olesya Nikolayevna YELFIMOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

04\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.25 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 00.45 p.m. on 28\/07\/2019; the applicant remained in detention even after the record had been completed;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 04\/10\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n25283\/20<\/p>\n

23\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

Pavel Germanovich MILOVIDOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

26\/09\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.30 p.m. to 6.20 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 26\/09\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n25316\/20<\/p>\n

23\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Pavlovich ASAVKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

26\/09\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 8.20 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 03.00 p.m. on 29\/07\/2019, until the hearing on the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 26\/09\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n25904\/20<\/p>\n

22\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

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

1975<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

22\/11\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 6.40 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 03.00 a.m. on 28\/07\/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 01\/08\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 22\/11\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n25937\/20<\/p>\n

22\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

Matvey Gennadyevich KURZUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

22\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.50 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 00.15 a.m. on 28\/07\/2019; the applicant spent 5 hours in a police van before having been brought to the police station;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 22\/10\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n27977\/20<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

Mikhail Igorevich ROSHCHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 15,000<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

26\/09\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.30 p.m. to 9.50 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 02\/08\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 26\/09\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n28314\/20<\/p>\n

03\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

Maksim Viktorovich KRAVCHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 5<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

18\/12\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.40 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019, while the record had been drawn up only on 02\/08\/2019;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 18\/12\/2019.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n32080\/20<\/p>\n

23\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Sergeyevich MALOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\nArticle 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of<\/p>\n

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

28\/10\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 8.15. p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 2.15 p.m. on 29\/07\/2019; the applicant remained in detention even after the record had been completed;<\/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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 28\/10\/2019.<\/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