{"id":21091,"date":"2023-09-07T11:06:52","date_gmt":"2023-09-07T11:06:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21091"},"modified":"2023-09-07T11:06:52","modified_gmt":"2023-09-07T11:06:52","slug":"case-of-nikolenko-and-others-v-russia-13679-18-and-20-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21091","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF NIKOLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 13679\/18 and 20 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF NIKOLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 13679\/18 and 20 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 September 2023<\/p>\n

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

In the case of Nikolenko 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,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 6 July 2023,<\/p>\n

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

PROCEDURE<\/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 Government\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 or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various 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\u00a0January 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 or 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\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.\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, having dismissed the Government\u2019s objection of non-exhaustion in applications nos. 39614\/18, 45704\/18 and 48549\/19, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos.\u00a06232\/20 and 22394\/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 its Protocols, 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 35 \u00a7 3 (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 these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a063-65, 13\u00a0February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 115-31, 10 April 2018; and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38-42, 8\u00a0October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.<\/p>\n

V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n

14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles\u00a05 and 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.<\/p>\n

15. The Court has further 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 34 and 35 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. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/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\u00a0October 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 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, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 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 well-established case\u2011law 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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 September 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Lorraine Schembri Orland
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

__________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
\n(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

Year of birth<\/strong><\/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\u2011established case-law<\/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<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n13679\/18<\/p>\n

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

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

1989<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Vladimir<\/p>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\nVladimir Regional Court<\/p>\n

06\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n39614\/18<\/p>\n

03\/08\/2018<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Yuryevich ARTEMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Eysmont Mariya Olegovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/p>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\n

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

administrative detention of 7\u00a0days<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

06\/02\/2018<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

27\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 12\/06\/2017 as administrative suspect, for drawing up a record of administrative offence; and (ii)\u00a0between 6 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 and 01\/02\/2021, as administrative suspect, “for compilation of administrative material”; no evidence\/assessment of any “exceptional circumstances”, under the CAO,<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n44996\/18<\/p>\n

14\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

Vladislav Vladimirovich KULCHITSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally in support on A.\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

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

24\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 3 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nRostov Regional Court<\/p>\n

19\/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
4.<\/td>\n45058\/18<\/p>\n

12\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

Olga Yuryevna KOMLEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

Ufa<\/p>\n

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

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

Ufa<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

fine of RUB\u00a075,000<\/td>\n

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

14\/03\/2018<\/p>\n

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

07\/11\/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 – both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings<\/td>\n4,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n45704\/18<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Yevgenyevich BOGATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nAnti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

23\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

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

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

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

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

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

22\/03\/2018<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

13\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 12\/06\/2017, and (ii) on 23\/01\/2021, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n54029\/18<\/p>\n

06\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Vladimirovich KALINYCHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nBoris Nemtsov memorial march<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

25\/02\/2018<\/p>\n

Event to protest against unfair elections (“Funeral of the elections”)<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

11\/03\/2018<\/p>\n

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

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

fine of RUB\u00a0150,000<\/p>\n

administrative detention of 20\u00a0days<\/p>\n

administrative detention of 20\u00a0days<\/td>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

14\/11\/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 – all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings,<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 13\/09\/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO<\/td>\n

6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n55565\/18<\/p>\n

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

and<\/p>\n

52297\/20<\/p>\n

31\/10\/2020<\/td>\n

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

1987<\/td>\n

Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally against the ban of the Telegram Messenger<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

16\/04\/2018<\/p>\n

Rally against abusive criminal prosecution<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

03\/02\/2020<\/p>\n

Event in support of LGBT community<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

07\/10\/2020<\/td>\n

Article 20.2.2 \u00a7\u00a01 of CAO<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

administrative detention of 30\u00a0days<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

04\/09\/2020<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

13\/10\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty \u2013 (i)\u00a0arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 16\/04\/2018 and 17\/04\/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record was drawn up on 16\/04\/2018); (ii) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 08\/10\/2020 and 09\/10\/2020 as administrative suspect;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings, final judgments given on 30\/05\/2018 and 13\/10\/2020 respectively)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n11699\/19<\/p>\n

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

Aleksey Yuryevich GOLYSHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2021<\/p>\n

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

Korolev, Moscow Region<\/p>\n

21\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (first-instance court \u2013 proceedings discontinued by the court of appeal)<\/p>\n

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

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

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (ordered by the first instance court\u00a0\u2013 subsequently quashed, as proceedings discontinued by the court of appeal)<\/p>\n

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

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

24\/09\/2018<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court (administrative\u2011offence proceedings discontinued)<\/p>\n

07\/06\/2021<\/p>\n

Moscow Regional Court<\/p>\n

27\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) escorted and detained in a police station on 05\/05\/2018 as administrative suspect; (ii) on 31\/01\/2021, for drawing up a record of administrative offence; (iii)\u00a0between 21\/04\/2021 and 23\/04\/2021, as administrative suspect;<\/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 the first and the third sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (final judgments of 24\/09\/2018 and 27\/05\/2021)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n17792\/19<\/p>\n

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

Timur Arturovich TUKHVATULLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

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

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

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

20\/02\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 09\/09\/2018, in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n28970\/19<\/p>\n

04\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Kirill Vladimirovich SEREBRENNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Fedotova Yuliya Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/td>\n

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

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

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

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

22\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n30129\/19<\/p>\n

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

Anatoliy Mariyevich SVECHNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

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

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

28\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention on 09\/09\/2018 in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,<\/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
12.<\/td>\n31511\/19<\/p>\n

28\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Natalya Sergeyevna PETERIMOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Balog Natalya Andreyevna<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

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

Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

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

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

29\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 18\/09\/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; escort and arrest records not compiled,<\/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
13.<\/td>\n37262\/19<\/p>\n

16\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

Anton Viktorovich STRUNIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Penza<\/p>\n

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

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

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

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

administrative detention of 10\u00a0days<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a014,000<\/td>\n

Penza Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

and<\/p>\n

Penza Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 11\/09\/2018 and 12\/09\/2018 as administrative suspect<\/td>\n5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n48549\/19<\/p>\n

28\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Petr Vladimirovich ABLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nEvent against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2018<\/p>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Manifestation in support of A.\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

23\/01\/2021<\/p>\n

Manifestation in support of A.\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2021<\/td>\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<\/p>\n

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

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

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

fine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

28\/02\/2019<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

14\/10\/2019<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

14\/04\/2021<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

08\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty-arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on four occasions, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: (i) on 05\/11\/2018, (ii) on 27\/07\/2019, in excess of three hours (the administrative offence record only drawn up on 31\/07\/2019), (iii) on 23\/01\/2021 (administrative offence record compiled only on 25\/01\/2021), and (iv) on 31\/01\/2021, in excess of three hours, and after the administrative-offence record had been drawn up,<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n56867\/19<\/p>\n

14\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vladimirovich YUFRYAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1958<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally against construction of a disposal site<\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 6 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a014,000<\/td>\nArkhangelsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

18\/06\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n6884\/20<\/p>\n

28\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Aleksey Yuryevich CHERKES<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

18\/11\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police office, detention between 27\/07\/2019 and 29\/07\/2019 as administrative suspect (offence record compiled already on 27\/07\/2019),<\/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>\n7523\/20<\/p>\n

29\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Ivanovich SKACHKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

04\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 27\/07\/2019 and 29\/07\/2019 as administrative suspect; no evidence\/assessment of any exceptional circumstances under the CAO,<\/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>\n12207\/20<\/p>\n

27\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Aleksey Igorevich SEMENOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Demonstration in support of Ivan Golunov<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

12\/06\/2019<\/td>\n

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

26\/08\/2019<\/p>\n

(the final decision served on the applicant on the following day)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty- arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention on 12\/06\/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;<\/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
19.<\/td>\n19605\/20<\/p>\n

25\/03\/2020<\/td>\n

Nikolay Nikolayevich LYASKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

31\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

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

02\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n32691\/20<\/p>\n

02\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

Vyacheslav Sergeyevich KUZNETSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

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

02\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03\/08\/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;<\/p>\n

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