{"id":20899,"date":"2023-05-11T10:09:56","date_gmt":"2023-05-11T10:09:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20899"},"modified":"2023-05-11T10:09:56","modified_gmt":"2023-05-11T10:09:56","slug":"case-of-ionov-and-others-v-russia-6991-15-and-21-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20899","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF IONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 6991\/15 and 21 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF IONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 6991\/15 and 21 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n11 May 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, President,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc,
\nDavor Deren\u010dinovi\u0107, judges,<\/p>\n

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

Having deliberated in private on 13 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 organisers and\/or 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\/or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a074552\/01, ECHR\u00a02006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no.\u00a033482\/06, 31\u00a0March 2009).<\/p>\n

9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568\/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204\/11, 4 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, 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. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 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

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

13. 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 proceedings.<\/p>\n

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

14. 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

15. 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. 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 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

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention concerning the right to peaceful assembly;<\/p>\n

5. 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

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

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 May 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lorraine Schembri Orland
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

_______________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
\n(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\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\u2011established case\u2011law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

1.<\/td>\n6991\/15<\/p>\n

30\/01\/2015<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Erikovich IONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

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

Manifestation against the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/07\/2013<\/td>\n

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

30\/07\/2014<\/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 30\/07\/2014<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n2136\/18<\/p>\n

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

Nataliya Nilovna LOBOVKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1957<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

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

St\u00a0Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt\u00a0Petersburg 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 – arrested at 2.40 p.m. on 29\/04\/2017; taken to a police station to draw a record of administrative offence; released at 10 p.m. on the same day; the complaint was raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court on 06\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n2563\/18<\/p>\n

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

Grigoriy Andreyevich YUROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Chelyabinsk<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a08,000<\/td>\nChelyabinsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

23\/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: Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 23\/06\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n2565\/18<\/p>\n

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

Arslan Azatovich NIGAMATYANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Chelyabinsk<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nChelyabinsk Regional 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. Final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 18\/08\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n2925\/18<\/p>\n

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

Galina Sergeyevna KULEMINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Articles 19.3 \u00a7 1 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a0500 and RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

30\/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 – taken to a police station to draw a record of administrative offence: arrested at 2:10 p.m. on 12\/06\/2017 during the rally, released on the following day, at 11 p.m. after the court hearing; the complaint was raised on appeal,<\/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. Final decisions: St Petersburg City Court on 30\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n2931\/18<\/p>\n

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

Mikhail Valeryevich MARUSIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Articles 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 and 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a010,000 and RUB\u00a0500<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

27\/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 – arrested at 3 p.m. on 12\/06\/2017 during the rally; taken to a police station to draw a record of administrative offence; released on the following day, after the court hearing at 8 p.m.; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings. Final decisions: St Petersburg City Court on 27\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n2932\/18<\/p>\n

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

Petr Alekseyevich OGAROK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/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\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/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 – arrested at 3 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017 during the rally; taken to a police station to draw a record of administrative offence; released on the same day, before midnight; the complaint was 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 30\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n2935\/18<\/p>\n

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

Pavel Aleksandrovich VINOGRADOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Articles 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 and 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a010,000 and RUB\u00a01,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

29\/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 – arrested at 3 p.m. on 12\/06\/2017 during the rally; taken to a police station to draw a record of administrative offence; released on the following day, after the court hearing at 7 p.m.; the complaint was raised on appeal,<\/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. Final decisions: St Petersburg City Court on 29\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n2952\/18<\/p>\n

09\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Gennadiy Valeryevich NELYUBIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

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

St\u00a0Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

04\/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 04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n3109\/18<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Alekseyevich METELEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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

03\/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 – arrested at 5.40 p.m. and released at 11\u00a0p.m. on 26\/03\/2017; the complaint was 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 03\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n3261\/18<\/p>\n

23\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Galina Lvovna DROZDETSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1950<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

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

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

04\/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 04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n3444\/18<\/p>\n

03\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

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

1996<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption protest<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Articles 19.3 \u00a7\u00a01 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a0500 and RUB\u00a05,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

04\/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 – arrested on 12\/06\/2017 at 2.30 p.m. and released after 6 p.m. on 13\/06\/2017; the complaint was 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 04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n3453\/18<\/p>\n

03\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Boris Aleksadrovich MEDVEDEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/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\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

04\/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 arrested at 3 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017 and released at 6.30 a.m. on 27\/03\/2017; the complaint was raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n3463\/18<\/p>\n

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

Ivan Alekseyevich LEMEKHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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

29\/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 – arrested at 5 p.m. and released at about 9 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017; the complaint was 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 29\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n3470\/18<\/p>\n

03\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SKOBKAREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Articles 19.3 \u00a7\u00a01 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a0500 and RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

04\/07\/2017<\/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. Final decisions: St Petersburg City Court on 04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n3501\/18<\/p>\n

03\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Yegor Vitalyevich YEVSTAFYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Articles 19.3 \u00a7\u00a01 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a0500 and RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

04\/07\/2017<\/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. Final decisions: St Petersburg City Court on 04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n3573\/18<\/p>\n

20\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Lyubov Sergeyevna KALANTYRYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

St\u00a0Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Articles 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 and 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a010,000 and RUB\u00a01,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

22\/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 – arrested at about 2.30 p.m. on 12\/06\/2017 and released at about 10 p.m. after the court hearing on 13\/06\/2017; the complaint was raised on appeal,<\/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. Final decisions: St Petersburg City Court on 22\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n3625\/18<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Nikolayevich GRIGORYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1965<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

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

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

20\/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 – arrested at 2.40 p.m. and released at 7.40 p.m. on 29\/04\/2017; the complaint was 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 20\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n3627\/18<\/p>\n

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

Yekaterina Vladimirovna MISTRYUKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

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

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

13\/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 – arrested at 2.52 p.m. and released at 7.40 p.m. on 29\/04\/2017; the complaint was 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 13\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n3648\/18<\/p>\n

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

Nikita Vadimovich SHUMKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

St\u00a0Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Articles 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 and 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a010,000 and RUB\u00a0500<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested by the police during the assembly on 12\/06\/2017 at 4 p.m., released on 13\/06\/2017 after 5 p.m. after the court hearing; the complaint was raised on appeal,<\/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. Final decisions: St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n3650\/18<\/p>\n

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

Kirill Sergeyevich KOROLEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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

03\/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 – arrested at 5.30 p.m. and released at 9.10 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017; the complaint was 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 03\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n3651\/18<\/p>\n

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

Nina Nikolayevna KHATKEVICH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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

03\/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 \u2013 arrested at 5.30 p.m. and released at 9.15 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017; the complaint was 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 03\/08\/2017<\/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