{"id":20829,"date":"2023-04-27T08:28:12","date_gmt":"2023-04-27T08:28:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20829"},"modified":"2023-04-27T08:28:12","modified_gmt":"2023-04-27T08:28:12","slug":"case-of-zolotova-and-others-v-russia-23893-15-and-32-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20829","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ZOLOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 23893\/15 and 32 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF ZOLOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 23893\/15 and 32 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n27 April 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nL\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov, President,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107,
\nErik Wennerstr\u00f6m, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 6 April 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 participants or organisers 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. 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 participants or organisers 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\u00a011 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevi\u010dius and Others v. 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, having dismissed the Government\u2019s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Smadikov v. Russia\u00a0(dec.), no. 10810\/15, 31 January 2017) and having due regard to the issue of compliance with the six-month period under Article\u00a035 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos.\u00a06232\/20 and\u00a022394\/20, \u00a7\u00a7 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID- related extension of the period in question), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the 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 and Protocols thereto, given the relevant well\u2011established 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 findings in Butkevich v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a05865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a063-64, 13\u00a0February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 115-31, 10\u00a0April 2018; Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a034-36, 8 October 2019; and Teslenko and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a049588\/12 and 3 others, \u00a7\u00a7 72-74 and 81-82, 5\u00a0April 2022, as to administrative escorting to and\/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally venue or any exceptional circumstances or another valid ground under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) or continued detention after the offence report was compiled; Karelin v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a0926\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 58-85, 20\u00a0September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings under the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); and Korneyeva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 62-65, concerning the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

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

13. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, there is no need to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

14. Lastly, the Court has examined other complaints raised in application no.\u00a073802\/17 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.\u00a0It follows that they 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

15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n

16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a025809\/17 and 14 others, \u00a7\u00a022, 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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Articles\u00a05 and 6 of the Convention and declares the remainder of application no.\u00a073802\/17 inadmissible;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article\u00a011 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case\u2011law of the Court (see the appended table);<\/p>\n

6. Holds<\/p>\n

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

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 April 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0L\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \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\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><\/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

\u00a0(in euros)[i]<\/sup><\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

1.<\/td>\n23893\/15<\/p>\n

03\/05\/2015<\/td>\n

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

1968<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

14\/09\/2014<\/td>\n

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

RUB 18,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

04\/12\/2014<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n64088\/16<\/p>\n

28\/10\/2016<\/p>\n

(5 applicants)<\/td>\n

Mikhail Vladimirovich AKSARIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ivan Anatolyevich KARAMNOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Aleksandra Mikhaylovna LAVROVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Kseniya Anatolyevna TRETYUKHINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/p>\n

Marina Samuelovna SHEBELYAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

“Moving exhibition Ne mir\u201d<\/p>\n

Moscow, 13\/03\/2016<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Karamnov, Lavrova and Tretyukhina<\/p>\n

Shebelyan<\/p>\n

Aksarin<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

20\/05\/2016<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

22\/06\/2016<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

06\/07\/2016<\/td>\n

For each applicant:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 13\/03\/2016 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling offence reports,<\/p>\n

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

4,000,<\/p>\n

to each applicant<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

3.<\/td>\n2665\/17<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2016<\/td>\n

Andrey Mikhaylovich BAZHUTIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1971<\/p>\n

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

Arkadiy Anatolyevich MOSHNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1962<\/td>\n

Glukhov<\/p>\n

Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally against a road\u2011tax system “Platon”<\/p>\n

Rostov-on-Don,<\/p>\n

24\/08\/2016<\/td>\n

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

RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

to each applicant<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court<\/p>\n

10\/10\/2016<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500,<\/p>\n

to each applicant<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

4.<\/td>\n69342\/17<\/p>\n

22\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Mikhail Andreyevich PCHELIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Benyash<\/p>\n

Mikhail Mikhaylovich<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Sochi,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 20,000<\/td>\n

Krasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

05\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n73802\/17<\/p>\n

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

Oleg Borisovich KABATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg,<\/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

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 500<\/p>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

18\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 12\u201113\/06\/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n79030\/17<\/p>\n

09\/11\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

28723\/18<\/p>\n

07\/06\/2018<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Iosifovich DEGTYAREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1951<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rostov-on-Don,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Rostov Regional Court<\/p>\n

19\/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 \u2013 in both cases<\/td>\n5,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\nZhdanov<\/p>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Rostov-on-Don,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 150,000<\/td>\n

Rostov Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

8.<\/td>\n79232\/17<\/p>\n

09\/11\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

6089\/18<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

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

1977<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Gatchina,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Leningrad Regional Court<\/p>\n

31\/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 \u2013 in both cases<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n <\/p>\n

–<\/td>\n

Event for collecting petitions to the Russian President<\/p>\n

St Petersburg,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

27\/06\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

10.<\/td>\n82860\/17<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

25320\/20<\/p>\n

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

Illarion Gennadyevich BORTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

02\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 26\/03\/2017 and 27\/07\/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports (in application no. 25320\/20 – the report was then compiled on 30\/07\/2019 only),<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 in both cases<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\nRally for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

12.<\/td>\n3646\/18<\/p>\n

22\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Mariya Davidovna MOLDAVSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Chertkov<\/p>\n

Andrey Veniaminovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg,<\/p>\n

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

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

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

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 500<\/p>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 29\u201130\/04\/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports,<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – Final decision in both sets of the proceedings – 27\/06\/2017, St\u00a0Petersburg City Court; Art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant\u2019s prosecution and punishment in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n3649\/18<\/p>\n

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

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

1972<\/td>\n

Golubok<\/p>\n

Sergey Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

The Hague<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg,<\/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

1 day of detention<\/p>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 12\u201113\/06\/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports,<\/p>\n

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

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – Final decision in both set of proceedings – 27\/06\/2017, St\u00a0Petersburg City Court; Art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 CAO and Art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 CAO; overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant\u2019s prosecution and punishment in the second set of proceedings with substantially the same facts underlying his conviction in the first set of proceedings<\/td>\n

5,000<\/p>\n

in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n

850,<\/p>\n

in respect of legal costs, to be paid directly to the representative, S.\u00a0Golubok<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

14.<\/td>\n3673\/18<\/p>\n

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

Emil Vasifovich ABDULOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg,<\/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

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 500<\/p>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

27\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 12\u201113\/06\/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n5155\/18<\/p>\n

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

Rasul Rafikovich ABDULIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 26\/03\/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n8780\/18<\/p>\n

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

Kirill Aleksandrovich MUKAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

14\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 26\u201127\/03\/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n9368\/18<\/p>\n

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

Georgiush Ryza KASHAKHI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 26\/03\/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling an offence report,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n21407\/18<\/p>\n

23\/04\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

39979\/18<\/p>\n

09\/08\/2018<\/td>\n

Irina Petrovna YEPIFANOVSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1955<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Prikhodina Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Rally against political persecution<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

30\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

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

24\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 30\/06\/2017 and 02\/07\/2017 escorting to and detention a police station for compiling offence reports,<\/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 \u2013 in both cases<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\nAssembly to support Y.\u00a0Dmitriyev<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

02\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

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

RUB 5,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

16\/02\/2018<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

20.<\/td>\n22814\/18<\/p>\n

30\/04\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

14296\/20<\/p>\n

22\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Nikita Dmitriyevich ROMANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

08\/02\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 12\/06\/2017 and 27\/07\/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 in both cases<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\nRally for fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

06\/11\/2019<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

22.<\/td>\n28164\/18<\/p>\n

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

Andrey Borisovich AZHIMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 20,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

04\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 12\/06\/2017 escorting to and detention a police station for compiling an offence report,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n29959\/18<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2018<\/td>\n

Artem Vasilyevich VOYTENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Bryansk,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

Bryansk Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n33002\/18<\/p>\n

09\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Arsen Aleksandrovich ULLUBIEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

24\/01\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n33140\/18<\/p>\n

03\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Mikhail Vladimirovich STEPANETS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/01\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n39277\/18<\/p>\n

07\/08\/2018<\/td>\n

Arina Andreyevna MESHCHERYAKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

\u201cVoters\u2019 Strike\u201d rally<\/p>\n

Volgograd,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Volgograd Regional Court<\/p>\n

07\/02\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n42072\/18<\/p>\n

24\/08\/2018<\/td>\n

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

1991<\/td>\n

Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

\u201cVoters\u2019 Strike\u201d rally<\/p>\n

Volgograd,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Volgograd Regional Court<\/p>\n

01\/03\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n42080\/18<\/p>\n

24\/08\/2018<\/td>\n

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

1977<\/td>\n

Prikhodina Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Assembly to support Y.\u00a0Dmitriyev<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

02\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 02\/07\/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n43667\/18<\/p>\n

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

Alexandr Gershovich CHERNYY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1950<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

06\/03\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 12\/06\/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n45692\/18<\/p>\n

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

Aleksandr Vladislavovich ZHUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

Perm,<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n20 hours of community work<\/td>\nPerm Regional Court<\/p>\n

14\/03\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n45710\/18<\/p>\n

22\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

Vladimir Igorevich VINICHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

22\/03\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n49552\/18<\/p>\n

11\/10\/2018<\/td>\n

Oleg Viktorovich POLYAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

\u201cVoters\u2019 Strike\u201d rally<\/p>\n

Volgograd,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Volgograd Regional Court<\/p>\n

11\/04\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33.<\/td>\n7369\/19<\/p>\n

28\/01\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksey Vladimirovich NEBESNYY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/08\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 12\/06\/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings<\/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