{"id":20657,"date":"2023-03-23T12:54:19","date_gmt":"2023-03-23T12:54:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20657"},"modified":"2023-03-23T12:54:19","modified_gmt":"2023-03-23T12:54:19","slug":"case-of-bazhenov-and-others-v-russia-10149-20-and-19-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20657","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF BAZHENOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 10149\/20 and 19 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF BAZHENOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 10149\/20 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 Bazhenov 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 Mosgorduma. 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.\u00a074552\/01,<\/p>\n

ECHR\u00a02006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no.\u00a033482\/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\u00a0October 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, 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

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\u00a034-36, 8\u00a0October\u00a02019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public events; and Karelin v.\u00a0Russia, 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. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings and alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.<\/p>\n

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

15. 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

16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [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

4. 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 the well-established case-law of the Court (as indicted in the appended table) admissible and finds that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article\u00a06 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention concerning the interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of 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\u00a0months, 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/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
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

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

under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

1.<\/td>\n10149\/20<\/p>\n

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

Denis Anatolyevich BAZHENOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

08\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention on 27\/07\/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings \u2013 Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

08\/10\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n10632\/20<\/p>\n

17\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Anastasiya Antonovna YAKUBOVSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

04\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention on 27\/07\/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

04\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n10639\/20<\/p>\n

17\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Yakov Vadimovich MANSHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – lack of legal grounds for arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 27\/07\/2019 in excess of 3 hours;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n10703\/20<\/p>\n

17\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Valeriy Yuryevich KISLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – lack of legal grounds for arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 27\/07\/2019 in excess of 3 hours;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/09\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n10820\/20<\/p>\n

22\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Yevgeniya Valeryevna YEFREMOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

28\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

28\/08\/2019;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 arrest, escorting to the police office and detention on 27\/07\/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n10922\/20<\/p>\n

07\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Anton Aleksandrovich LIFANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

20\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – unlawful detention on 03\/08\/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

20\/09\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n10925\/20<\/p>\n

07\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Denis Anatolyevich YEGOROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – unlawful detention on 03\/08\/2019 exceeded 8 hours; detained solely for the purpose of drawing up an offence record;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/09\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n11037\/20<\/p>\n

07\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Vitaliy Vladimirovich CHERNYKH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 19,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

28\/10\/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 detention on 27-28 July 2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

28\/10\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n11039\/20<\/p>\n

07\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Aleksey Aleksandrovich ILCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

26\/09\/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 detention on 27\/07\/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up an arrest record;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

26\/09\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n11078\/20<\/p>\n

22\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Yuryevich NEDOSEKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n120 hours\u2019 compulsory work<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

22\/08\/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 detention on 27\/07\/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up an arrest record;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

22\/08\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n11082\/20<\/p>\n

22\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Sergey Yevgenyevich PIKHOVKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

26\/08\/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 detention on 27\/07\/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an arrest record;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

26\/08\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n11088\/20<\/p>\n

22\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Igor Gennadyevich MUSHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

22\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – lack of legal grounds for arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 27\/07\/2019 in excess of 3 hours;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

22\/08\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n11177\/20<\/p>\n

22\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Roman Nikolayevich IZOTOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

26\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours on 27\/07\/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

26\/09\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n11184\/20<\/p>\n

22\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Leonid Alekseyevich NOVITSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

26\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention in excess of 3 hours for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest on 27\/07\/2019;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

26\/08\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n11311\/20<\/p>\n

15\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Vsevolod Yuryevich SEKRETEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 6 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

16\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

16\/08\/2019;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – lack of legal grounds for arrest and escorting to the police station on 27\/07\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n11732\/20<\/p>\n

20\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

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

1992<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

20\/08\/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 on 27\/07\/2019 to the police office for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

20\/08\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n11946\/20<\/p>\n

20\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Sergey Konstantinovich MOROZOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

20\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

20\/08\/2019;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\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 office on 27\/07\/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n11977\/20<\/p>\n

20\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Roman Petrovich FANASKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

04\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

04\/09\/2019;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\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 office on 27\/07\/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n12046\/20<\/p>\n

20\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Pavel Platonovich KROKHONYATKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

27\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

06\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

06\/09\/2019;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\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 office on 27\/07\/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n14008\/20<\/p>\n

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

Vadim Anatolyevich KAGLIK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/08\/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 detention on 03\/08\/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal – absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings: Final decision:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/08\/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