{"id":20781,"date":"2023-04-13T09:43:56","date_gmt":"2023-04-13T09:43:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20781"},"modified":"2023-04-13T09:46:24","modified_gmt":"2023-04-13T09:46:24","slug":"case-of-uvarkina-and-others-v-russia-70089-12-and-40-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20781","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF UVARKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 70089\/12 and 40 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF UVARKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 70089\/12 and 40 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 April 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nFaris Vehabovi\u0107, President,
\nArmen Harutyunyan,
\nAnja Seibert-Fohr, judges,<\/p>\n

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

Having deliberated in private on 23 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 participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

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

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

II. jurisdiction<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17 January 2023).<\/p>\n

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

7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies, and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 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. 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

9. 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

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having due regard to the issue of compliance with the six-month period under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232\/20 and\u00a022394\/20, \u00a7\u00a7 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID\u2011related 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 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

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

12. 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.<\/p>\n

13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 61-65, 13 February 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to administrative escorting to and detention in a police station beyond three hours without any justification; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 58-85, 20\u00a0September 2016, related to the absence of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings governed by the Code of Administrative Offences (\u201cthe CAO\u201d); Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818\/09 and 14 others, \u00a7\u00a7 402-78, 7\u00a0February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 179-91, 10\u00a0April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38-42, 8 October 2019, related to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.<\/p>\n

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

14. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n

15. Firstly, the Court considers that, in view of its findings in paragraphs\u00a011 and 13 above, there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings.<\/p>\n

16. Furthermore, the Court has examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants and 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles\u00a034 and\u00a035 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n

17. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

18. 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

19. Having regard to the nature of the complaint raised by Mr Ishutin in application no. 70440\/17, the Court considers that the finding of a violation, triggering the respondent State\u2019s obligation to take measures aimed at ensuring the respect of the right to freedom of assembly indicated in the judgment of Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988\/09 and 50 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a027-29, 27 November 2018, constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in that case (see, for a similar approach, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26624\/15 and 76 others, \u00a7 18, 16 January 2020, Zverev and\u00a0Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26363\/18 and 2 others, \u00a7 15, 7 July 2022, and Taratunin and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 2051\/18 and 4 others, \u00a7 14, 28 July 2022)<\/p>\n

20. As to the remaining applicants, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v.\u00a0Russia [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.<\/p>\n

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

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

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants\u2019 complaints as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,\u00a0finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n

6. Holds that the finding of the violation of Article 11 in respect of Mr\u00a0Ishutin in application no. 70440\/17 constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction;<\/p>\n

7. Holds<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 13 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 Faris Vehabovi\u0107
\nActing Deputy Registrar \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

(restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events)<\/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\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative charges<\/strong><\/td>\nPenalty<\/strong><\/td>\nFinal domestic decision<\/strong><\/td>\nOther complaints under well\u2011established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

1.<\/td>\n70089\/12<\/p>\n

06\/10\/2012<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

11801\/18<\/p>\n

16\/02\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

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

Protest against the results of 2011 Parliamentary elections<\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

10\/12\/2011<\/p>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

administrative fine of RUB 500<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n

18\/07\/2013<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 16\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative\u2011offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n14146\/14<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2014<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

17361\/19<\/p>\n

18\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

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

1978<\/td>\n

Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Rally in support of the \u201cMarch of Millions\u201d<\/p>\n

Perm<\/p>\n

12\/06\/2013<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rally against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Perm<\/p>\n

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

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

 <\/p>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative detention of 15 days<\/td>\n

Perm Regional Court<\/p>\n

01\/08\/2013<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Perm Regional Court<\/p>\n

18\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 on 09\/09\/2018 at 6.40 p.m. the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 \u2013 delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal \u2013 the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately on 10\/09\/2018, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n52481\/17<\/p>\n

08\/07\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

74992\/17<\/p>\n

19\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Irina Aleksandrovna YATSENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

25\/08\/2016<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cReadings of the Russian Constitution\u201d Moscow<\/p>\n

12\/09\/2016<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cReadings of the Russian Constitution\u201d Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

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

administrative fine of RUB 15,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative fine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court 16\/01\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow City Court 24\/03\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow City Court 26\/10\/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 under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (events of 12\/09\/2016 and 12\/05\/2017);<\/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 on 12\/09\/2016 and 12\/05\/2017 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art.\u00a027.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.\u00a027.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n69791\/17<\/p>\n

20\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Raushan Faizovich VALIULLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Naberezhnye Chelny<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n70440\/17<\/p>\n

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

Kirill Dmitriyevich NIKOLENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kirill Valeryevich ISHUTIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Vladimir<\/p>\n

(Mr Nikolenko)<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/p>\n

(Mr Nikolenko)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 25,000<\/p>\n

(Mr Nikolenko)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Vladimir Regional Court<\/p>\n

02\/08\/2017<\/p>\n

(Mr Nikolenko)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a02 of CAO in respect of Mr Nikolenko;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 11 (1) – restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events – local administration\u2019s refusal to approve the opposition march on 29\/04\/2017 organised by Mr Nikolenko and Mr Ishutin (final decision Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 22\/02\/2018).<\/td>\n

3,500<\/p>\n

(Mr Nikolenko)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

6.<\/td>\n70491\/17<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

21716\/19<\/p>\n

08\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

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

1979<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Akhtyamova Chulpan Salavatovna<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Naberezhnye Chelny<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

Rally against the pension reform Naberezhnye Chelny<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan<\/p>\n

07\/06\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan<\/p>\n

17\/10\/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 administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a01 of CAO;<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 on 09\/09\/2018 and 18\/09\/2018 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n4522\/18<\/p>\n

25\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Maksim Sergeyevich TERESHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Sidelnikova Polina Aleksandrovna<\/p>\n

Vladivistok<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nPrimorye Regional Court<\/p>\n

28\/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 under Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n4552\/18<\/p>\n

12\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Andrey Sergeyevich MELKHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vladimir Valeryevich SOLDATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

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

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Ukhta<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 5,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Komi Republic 12\/07\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 on 26\/03\/2017 the applicants were taken to the police station as administrative suspects: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspects\u2019 identity; detention from 2.25 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. (Mr Melkhov) and from 2.25 p.m. to 7.25 p.m. (Mr Soldatov) with no justification;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/p>\n

(Mr Melkhov)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4,000<\/p>\n

(Mr Soldatov)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

9.<\/td>\n4847\/18<\/p>\n

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

Anton Borisovich RASIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nPrimorye Regional Court<\/p>\n

23\/08\/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 under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n5195\/18<\/p>\n

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

Mariya Igorevna ZINCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nPrimorye Regional 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 – on 26\/03\/2017 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n5327\/18<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

7933\/19<\/p>\n

25\/01\/2019<\/td>\n

Vyacheslav Ilyich GIMADI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

18\/08\/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 under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 11 (1) – restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events \u2013 Moscow city administration\u2019s numerous refusals to approve public meetings with A. Navalnyy in Pushkinskaya Square in Moscow between 30\/09\/2017 and 16\/12\/2017 (final decisions were given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 14\/09\/2018, 04\/10\/2018, 05\/10\/2018, 18\/10\/2018, 26\/10\/2018; 23\/11\/2018 and 12\/12\/2018).<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n7861\/18<\/p>\n

10\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

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

1967<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Political march<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

27\/06\/2017<\/p>\n

(copy received on 20\/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 under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n11830\/18<\/p>\n

02\/03\/2018<\/td>\n

Radislav Rafailovich FEDOROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Naberezhnye Chelny<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

 <\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 13\/09\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n24202\/18<\/p>\n

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

Yuriy Yuryevich VOLOBUYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Smolensk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nSmolensk Regional Court<\/p>\n

14\/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 under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a02 of CAO.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n28408\/18<\/p>\n

30\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Maksim Dmitriyevich SOLODNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Perm<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\ncommunity work of 20 hours<\/td>\nPerm Regional Court<\/p>\n

30\/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 under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n30475\/18<\/p>\n

14\/06\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

8274\/20<\/p>\n

21\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Mikhail Mikhaylovich SILICH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1938<\/td>\n

Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

08\/10\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

 <\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 2,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative fine of RUB 5,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

16\/03\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow City Court 24\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n35074\/18<\/p>\n

12\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Irina Alekseyevna ILYINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

12\/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 – on 14\/06\/2017 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n37025\/18<\/p>\n

25\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Konstantin Matveyevich SALTYKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally in support of A. Navalnyy \u201cStrike of voters\u201d<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

28\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 8 of CAO<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

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

administrative detention of 30 days<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

administrative detention of 15 days<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

08\/02\/2018 (two decisions)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 on 28\/01\/2018 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity; detention at the police station from 2.40 p.m. on 28\/01\/2018 to 1.20 p.m. on 29\/01\/2018 with no justification; the record of administrative arrest was compiled only eight hours after the applicant\u2019s arrest and escorting to the police station;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO and under Article 19.3 \u00a7\u00a01 of CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n41140\/18<\/p>\n

25\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Anton Sergeyevich GRACHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Gatchina, Leningrad Region<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 5 days<\/td>\nLeningrad Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a02 of CAO;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 11 (1) – restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events – local administration\u2019s refusal to approve the locations and dates of political rallies on 07\/10\/2017 and 08\/10\/2017 (final decision Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 15\/08\/2018).<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n50045\/18<\/p>\n

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

Semen Sergeyevich LASKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Political rally \u201cHe is not our tsar\u201d<\/p>\n

Voronezh<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court<\/p>\n

26\/06\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 11 (1) – restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events – local administration\u2019s refusal to approve the location and date of the political rally \u201cStrike of voters\u201d on 28\/01\/2018 (final decision by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 25\/05\/2018).<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n50624\/18<\/p>\n

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

Nikita Olegovich RYAZHSKIKH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Political rally \u201cHe is not our tsar\u201d<\/p>\n

Voronezh<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

05\/05\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 11 (1) – restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events – local administration\u2019s refusals to approve the locations and dates of four public events planned between 10\/11\/2017 and 25\/11\/2017 (final decisions were given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation<\/p>\n

23\/07\/2018 and 18\/09\/2018).<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n56385\/18<\/p>\n

17\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Aleksandra Andreyevna SHINKAREVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Tbilisi, Georgia<\/td>\n

Political rally \u201cHe is not our tsar\u201d<\/p>\n

Irkutsk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 3 of CAO<\/td>\ncommunity work of 50 hours<\/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 under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a03 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n11398\/19<\/p>\n

15\/02\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

52155\/19<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

9303\/20<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2020<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

30159\/20<\/p>\n

21\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Zamyatin Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich<\/p>\n

Berlin<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Los Vladlen Kornelevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

14\/07\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 8 of CAO<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a02 of CAO<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

administrative fine of RUB 250,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative fine of RUB\u00a025,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative detention of 15 days<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/04\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow City Court 26\/02\/2020<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

02\/08\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 on 25\/10\/2018 and 27\/07\/2019 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity; detention at the police station from 9.25 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019 to 8.30 p.m. on 29\/07\/2019 with no justification;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a02, Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 and Article 20.2 \u00a7 8 of CAO;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 11 (1) – restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events \u2013<\/p>\n

Moscow City administration\u2019s refusals to approve the locations and dates of five public meetings with A. Navalnyy planned between 29\/09\/2017 and 06\/11\/2017 (final decisions were given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 24\/08\/2018, 27\/08\/2018, 17\/09\/2018 and 23\/11\/2018).<\/td>\n

7,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n18503\/19<\/p>\n

21\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

Timur Kamalutdinovich RASULOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

\u201cDisappearing Constitution\u201d protest<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 8 of CAO<\/td>\ncommunity work of 100 hours<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

29\/01\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a08 of CAO.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n22911\/19<\/p>\n

10\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

Illarion Yevgenyevich LITVINOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/td>\n

Rally against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

01\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nPrimorye Regional Court<\/p>\n

24\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 on 28\/07\/2018 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n22914\/19<\/p>\n

10\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

Tatyana Yuryevna KHARDINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/td>\n

Rally against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

01\/07\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rally against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rally against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

15\/09\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

administrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

administrative fine of RUB 5,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Primorye Regional Court<\/p>\n

27\/11\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Primorye Regional Court<\/p>\n

09\/01\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Primorye Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/11\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 on 04\/07\/2018 at 1.50 p.m. and on 15\/09\/2018 at 2.10 p.m. the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity; detention in the police station from 3\u00a0p.m. on 15\/09\/2018 to 2.10 p.m. on 17\/09\/2018 with no justification;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n6929\/20<\/p>\n

14\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Ivan Mikhaylovich ZVYAGIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

\u201cMonstration\u201d public event<\/p>\n

Kursk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

01\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nKursk Regional Court<\/p>\n

13\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n6955\/20<\/p>\n

14\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

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

1969<\/td>\n

Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

\u201cMonstration\u201d public event<\/p>\n

Kursk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

01\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nKursk Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n6957\/20<\/p>\n

14\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Nadezhda Igorevna KOLYCHEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

\u201cMonstration\u201d public event<\/p>\n

Kursk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

01\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nKursk Regional Court<\/p>\n

27\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n6962\/20<\/p>\n

14\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

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

1972<\/td>\n

Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

\u201cMonstration\u201d public event<\/p>\n

Kursk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

01\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nKursk Regional Court<\/p>\n

13\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n38358\/20<\/p>\n

22\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

Petr Ivanovich KIKILYK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1944<\/td>\n

Ruchko Irina Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Degtyarsk, Sverdlovsk Region<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

13\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative fine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nSverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

23\/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 \u2013 on 13\/07\/2019 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity; detention from 3.30 p.m. on 13\/07\/2019 to 11.45 a.m. on 14\/07\/2019 with no justification;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a02 of CAO.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n38452\/20<\/p>\n

18\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

Matvey Alekseyevich ALEKSANDROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Eysmont Mariya Olegovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

13\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

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

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

 <\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis \u2013 on 13\/10\/2019 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of CAO.<\/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