{"id":20747,"date":"2023-04-06T09:35:17","date_gmt":"2023-04-06T09:35:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20747"},"modified":"2023-04-06T09:35:17","modified_gmt":"2023-04-06T09:35:17","slug":"case-of-pchelin-and-others-v-russia-6274-13-and-23-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20747","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF PCHELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 6274\/13 and 23 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF PCHELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 6274\/13 and 23 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n6 April 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nPeeter Roosma, President,
\nIoannis Ktistakis,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd, judges,<\/p>\n

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

Having deliberated in private on 16 March 2023,<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and\/or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as the applicants\u2019 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. 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 interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly were not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n

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

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

11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 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(CAO)).<\/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 administrative-offence 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, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a025809\/17 and 14 others, \u00a7 22, 4 October 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

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 the 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 11 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 the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n

5. Holds<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 April 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 Peeter Roosma
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

_____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n

List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention<\/p>\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\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-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

1.<\/td>\n6274\/13<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Fedorovich PCHELIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Protest against a violation of freedom of peaceful assembly<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

Red Square<\/p>\n

01\/04\/2012<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a0500<\/td>\nTverskoy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n

13\/06\/2012<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n69940\/17<\/p>\n

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

Yevgeniy Viktorovich TRISHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a01,000 and RUB\u00a010,000, respectively<\/td>\nSt\u00a0Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

18\/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 – arrest and detention on 12\/06\/2017 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; 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 Petersburg City Court on 18\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n79158\/17<\/p>\n

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

Ivan Borisovich KURIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich<\/p>\n

Sofia, Bulgaria<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Labour Square, Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

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

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

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n79161\/17<\/p>\n

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

Leonid Valeryevich MELCHAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich<\/p>\n

Sofia, Bulgaria<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Labour Square, Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

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

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

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n79367\/17<\/p>\n

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

Leonid Leonidovich VINOKUROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich<\/p>\n

Sofia, Bulgaria<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Labour Square, Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

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

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

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n79945\/17<\/p>\n

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

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

1995<\/td>\n

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich<\/p>\n

Sofia, Bulgaria<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Labour square, Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

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

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

16\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) \u2013 unlawful deprivation of<\/p>\n

liberty, including unrecorded<\/p>\n

detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – The applicant was detained for almost 3 hours on 26\/03\/2017 in a police bus at the place of the events without a valid reason; raised on appeal<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n80631\/17<\/p>\n

17\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Anatoliy Viktorovich GONENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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 City Court<\/p>\n

26\/05\/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 26\/05\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n80632\/17<\/p>\n

17\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Oksana Aleksandrovna PROSNIKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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 City 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 – The applicant was escorted to a police station on 26\/03\/2017, where the administrative offence report was drawn up. The applicant\u2019s detention exceeded 3-hour statutory time limit; 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 17\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n80633\/17<\/p>\n

17\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Olga Nikolayevna BUSHKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

16\/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 \u2013 the applicant escorted to a police station to draw an administrative offence report; arrest exceeding 3-hour statutory time limit; 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\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n81111\/17<\/p>\n

20\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Yuliya Alekseyevna SUBOCHEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

Public assembly in favour of social benefits for Moscow residents<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

01\/07\/2016<\/td>\n

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

24\/05\/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 24\/05\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n83338\/17<\/p>\n

05\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Yuriy Aleksandrovich LEVANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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 City Court<\/p>\n

06\/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 \u2013 arrested on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; arrest exceeding 3-hour statutory time-limit; 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\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n83929\/17<\/p>\n

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

Andrey Aleksandrovich BELYAVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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 City 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: Moscow City Court on 14\/06\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n83934\/17<\/p>\n

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

Valeriy Sergeyevich NAZARKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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 City 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 – the applicant was arrested on 26\/03\/2017 and escorted to a police station for compiling an administrative offence record; arrest exceeding 3-hour statutory time- limit; 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 08\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n83937\/17<\/p>\n

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

Sergey Gennadyevich RIDINGER<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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 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 \u2013 the applicant was arrested on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record; the applicant\u2019s detention exceeded the statutory time- limit of 3\u00a0hours; 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
15.<\/td>\n83947\/17<\/p>\n

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

Aleksey Mikhaylovich SINITSYN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a05,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

18\/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 – the applicant was escorted to a police station for drawing up an administrative offence record; the arrest exceeded 3-hour statutory time- limit; 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 18\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n84510\/17<\/p>\n

15\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Vladimir Ivanovich SOFILKANICH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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 City Court<\/p>\n

16\/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 \u2013 the applicant was arrested on 26\/03\/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, without any assessment\/explanation as to why it was impossible to draw the record on the spot; unlawful administrative arrest exceeding 3 hours: apprehended by the police at 2.50 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017, released from the police station at 8\u00a0p.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: Moscow City Court on 16\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n84520\/17<\/p>\n

18\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Yekaterina Valeryevna TAGUNOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Mehtiyeva Kamalia<\/p>\n

Paris<\/td>\n

Rally for rotation of high-ranking Russian officials<\/p>\n

Aleksandrovskiy Park, St\u00a0Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

and<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a0500<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a0100<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

20\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n2160\/18<\/p>\n

11\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Kseniya Mikhaylovna KORCHILOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Velikiy Novgorod<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption demonstration<\/p>\n

St Petersburg,<\/p>\n

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

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

06\/07\/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: St Petersburg City Court on 06\/07\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n2845\/18<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Stanislav Valeryevich ANDREYCHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-terrorism manifestation<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/p>\n

08\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nAltay Regional Court<\/p>\n

12\/09\/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: Altay Regional Court on 12\/09\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n3844\/18<\/p>\n

13\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Mariya Sergeyevna SECHINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Ratnikova Svetlana Sergeyevna<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption demonstration<\/p>\n

St\u00a0Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

06\/07\/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: St Petersburg City Court on 06\/07\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n4818\/18<\/p>\n

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

Ruslan Igorevich OSTROVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Tverskaya square, Moscow<\/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

08\/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 – arrested on 26\/03\/2017, at 3.30 p.m., taken to a police station to draw up a record of administrative offence; released on the same day after 10 p.m., detention beyond the 3-hour statutory time-limit; 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 08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n59656\/18<\/p>\n

06\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

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

1986<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Opposition manifestation<\/p>\n

Republic Square, Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

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

07\/06\/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 the Chuvashia Republic on 07\/06\/2018<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n59662\/18<\/p>\n

08\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Pavel Vladimirovich NIKITIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Opposition manifestation<\/p>\n

Vladimir<\/p>\n

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

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

and<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a05,000<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

1 day of administrative arrest<\/td>\n

Vladimir Regional Court<\/p>\n

06\/09\/2018<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

Vladimir Regional Court<\/p>\n

09\/06\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings. Final decisions: Vladimir Regional Court on 06\/09\/2018 and 09\/06\/2018<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n1025\/19<\/p>\n

14\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Nikolay Aleksandrovich SKVORTSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Opposition manifestation<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

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

17\/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. Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic on 17\/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