{"id":20692,"date":"2023-03-30T14:54:41","date_gmt":"2023-03-30T14:54:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20692"},"modified":"2023-03-30T14:54:41","modified_gmt":"2023-03-30T14:54:41","slug":"case-of-maklashin-and-others-v-russia-70005-17-and-19-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20692","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF MAKLASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 70005\/17 and 19 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF MAKLASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 70005\/17 and 19 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n30 March 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc,
\nDavor Deren\u010dinovi\u0107, judges,<\/p>\n

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

Having deliberated in private on 9 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 Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

2. 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\/or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants 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

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

2. 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\/or 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.<\/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 [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. 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\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

9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, having dismissed the Government\u2019s objection of non-exhaustion in application nos.\u00a080792\/17, 2567\/18, 5283\/18, 5324\/18 and 5343\/18, 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

3. 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. 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.\u00a054381\/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 (CAO)).<\/p>\n

4. 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\u00a06 of the Convention raised by some of the applicants in relation to other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings.<\/p>\n

5. 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, Navalnyy and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], no.\u00a025809\/17 and 14 others, \u00a7\u00a022, 4\u00a0October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/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 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 administrative\u2011offence 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

6. Dismisses the reminder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 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 \u00a0Lorraine Schembri Orland
\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 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><\/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-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

1.<\/td>\n70005\/17<\/p>\n

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

Boris Sergeyevich MAKLASHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin<\/p>\n

Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

St\u00a0Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO,<\/p>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

fines of RUB\u00a0500 and RUB 10,000, respectively<\/td>\nSt\u00a0Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

13\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – unreasoned arrest and detention on 12\/06\/2017; detention in excess of 3 hours; issue raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court on 13\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n80792\/17<\/p>\n

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

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ZHEBREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

Glukhov<\/p>\n

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

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\u00a0p.m., brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence, released on the same day at 8 p.m.; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n82703\/17<\/p>\n

24\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

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

Yuryevna SHARAPOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption assembly<\/p>\n

Moscow, Pushkinskaya square \/ Tverskaya street<\/p>\n

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

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

City Court<\/p>\n

16\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n84265\/17<\/p>\n

14\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Igor Aleksandrovich KARKLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin<\/p>\n

Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Privokzalnaya Square near the Lenin monument, Vladivostok<\/p>\n

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

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

14\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Primorye Regional Court on 14\/06\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n2567\/18<\/p>\n

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

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

1990<\/td>\n

Glukhov<\/p>\n

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 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; issue examined by the appeal court,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n5012\/18<\/p>\n

08\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Garegin Robertovich ARAKELYAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin<\/p>\n

Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow<\/p>\n

City Court<\/p>\n

20\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – unreasoned arrest on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

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

on 20\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n5038\/18<\/p>\n

08\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Nadezhda Leonidovna LOZINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin<\/p>\n

Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\nMoscow<\/p>\n

City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – unreasoned arrest and detention on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n5283\/18<\/p>\n

17\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Anastasiya Borisovna GRYZUNOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin<\/p>\n

Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\nMoscow<\/p>\n

City Court<\/p>\n

02\/08\/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 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; issue examined by the appeal court,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 02\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n5324\/18<\/p>\n

08\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Vilen Vladimirovich SHEVCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin<\/p>\n

Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

City Court<\/p>\n

16\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

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

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 16\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n5343\/18<\/p>\n

08\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Ilya<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yuryevich BARABANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin<\/p>\n

Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

City Court<\/p>\n

24\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

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

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 24\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n11525\/18<\/p>\n

17\/02\/2018<\/td>\n

Stanislav Sergeyevich SHISHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Kaliningrad<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

Manifestation in support of Navalnyy\u2019s presidential campaign<\/p>\n

Kaliningrad<\/p>\n

07\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2<\/p>\n

\u00a7 5 of CAO<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Article 20.2<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

50 hours of community work<\/td>\n

Kaliningrad Regional Court<\/p>\n

17\/08\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Kaliningrad Regional Court<\/p>\n

25\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n12445\/18<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Viktorovich KARPENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Kholodtsova<\/p>\n

Inna<\/p>\n

Vadimovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2<\/p>\n

\u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow<\/p>\n

City Court<\/p>\n

06\/09\/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 at the place of manifestation; lengthy detention in a van; then detention in a police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 06\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n23661\/18<\/p>\n

04\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Anatolyevich MILLER<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

Benyash<\/p>\n

Mikhail Mikhaylovich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Krasnaya \/ Lenin str, Krasnodar<\/p>\n

07\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2<\/p>\n

\u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

35 hours of compulsory work<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n24447\/18<\/p>\n

10\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Stanislav Anatolyevich RAKITIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Yatsenko<\/p>\n

Irina Aleksandrovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-government manifestation<\/p>\n

Manezhnaya square, Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 19.3<\/p>\n

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

14 days of administrative detention<\/td>\nMoscow<\/p>\n

City Court<\/p>\n

10\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 10\/11\/2017<\/td>\n5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n24744\/18<\/p>\n

08\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Daniil Sergeyevich SKORBILIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Yatsenko<\/p>\n

Irina Aleksandrovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-government manifestation<\/p>\n

Pushkinskaya square, Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 19.3<\/p>\n

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

14 days of administrative detention<\/td>\nMoscow<\/p>\n

City Court<\/p>\n

08\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 08\/11\/2017<\/td>\n5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n28308\/18<\/p>\n

04\/06\/2018<\/td>\n

Vladislav Aleksandrovich NOVIK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Kholodtsova<\/p>\n

Inna<\/p>\n

Vadimovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2<\/p>\n

\u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow<\/p>\n

City Court<\/p>\n

19\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – unlawful arrest and escorting to the police station on 26\/03\/2017 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative arrest; detention in excess of 3 hours; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 19\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n28687\/18<\/p>\n

04\/06\/2018<\/td>\n

Kseniya Olegovna CHURILOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Yelanchik<\/p>\n

Oleg Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2<\/p>\n

\u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 20,000<\/td>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

City Court<\/p>\n

04\/12\/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 detention on 12\/06\/2017. The police officers failed to draw up a record of the applicant\u2019s arrest and detained her for about 3 hours in a police van and another 3 hours at a police station. The total time of her detention exceeded 6 hours; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 04\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n57050\/18<\/p>\n

24\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Tatyana Stepanovna PRISHANOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1950<\/td>\n

Romanov<\/p>\n

Pavel<\/p>\n

Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/td>\n

Opposition manifestation<\/p>\n

Smolensk<\/p>\n

05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Article 20.2<\/p>\n

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

60 hours of compulsory work<\/td>\nSmolensk Regional Court<\/p>\n

22\/08\/2018<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n57352\/18<\/p>\n

16\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Mariya Andreyevna RABINOVICH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Tbilisi, Georgia<\/td>\n

Political manifestation<\/p>\n

Irkutsk<\/p>\n

05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Article 20.2<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nIrkutsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

18\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court on 18\/07\/2018<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n58067\/18<\/p>\n

13\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Sergey Dmitriyevich VETLUZHSKIKH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Sholokhov<\/p>\n

Igor<\/p>\n

Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Opposition manifestation<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Article 20.2<\/p>\n

\u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of Tatarstan<\/p>\n

04\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 04\/07\/2018<\/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