{"id":21505,"date":"2023-11-09T09:49:08","date_gmt":"2023-11-09T09:49:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21505"},"modified":"2023-11-09T09:54:30","modified_gmt":"2023-11-09T09:54:30","slug":"case-of-mazurova-and-others-v-russia-984-15-and-23-others-the-applicants-complained-of-the-disproportionate-measures-taken-against-them-as-organisers-or-participants-of-public-assemblies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21505","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF MAZUROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (984\/15 and 23 others) The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies"},"content":{"rendered":"

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

\n

Read the entire document.<\/em><\/p>\n

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF MAZUROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 984\/15 and 23 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n9 November 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

Having deliberated in private on 19 October 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 or participants of public assemblies. Some of them 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.\u00a040792\/10 and 2\u00a0others, \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.\u00a0Lithuania [GC], no.\u00a037553\/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a074552\/01, ECHR\u00a02006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.\u00a0Moldova, 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. 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 Lashmankin and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a057818\/09 and 14 others, \u00a7 489, 7 February 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no.\u00a05865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a063-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/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); Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a025501\/07 and 4 others, \u00a7\u00a7 106-225, 26 April 2016, related to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921\/17 and 7202\/18, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a077-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; Martynyuk v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a013764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a038-42, 8\u00a0October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 178\u201188, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention; Korneyeva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 62-65, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.<\/p>\n

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

14. The applicants in application no. 984\/15 raised complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

15. Some other applicants also raised additional complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative\u2011offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.<\/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 Article 6 of the Convention, and\u00a0declares\u00a0the remainder of application no.\u00a0984\/15\u00a0inadmissible;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these applications 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<\/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

(a) 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 9 November 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 Peeter Roosma
\nActing Deputy Registrar\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\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

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

1.<\/td>\n984\/15<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2014<\/td>\n

1) Olga Mikhaylovna MAZUROVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/p>\n

2) Anna Valentinovna ANNENKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/p>\n

3) Niks Neytan NEMENI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Perm<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the Russian LGBT community<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

07\/02\/2014<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a05,000, 15,000 and 20,000, respectively in relation to the three applicants<\/td>\nMoscow City Court, 26\/06\/2014, 02\/07\/2014 and<\/p>\n

14\/07\/2014, respectively<\/td>\n

In respect of 2nd<\/sup> and 3rd<\/sup> applicants<\/u>:<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 8.15\u00a0p.m. to 11.35 p.m. on 07\/02\/2014<\/td>\n

3,000 (to applicant Mazurova)<\/p>\n

5,000 (to applicant Annenkova)<\/p>\n

5,000 (to applicant Nemeni)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2.<\/td>\n19096\/21<\/p>\n

23\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Viktor Kosto GRIVACHAUSKAS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1973<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Rally against the constitutional amendments<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

22\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

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

24\/09\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty:<\/p>\n

1) escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 6.00 p.m. to 11.40 p.m. on 26\/06\/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 06\/07\/2020,<\/p>\n

2) escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 12.10 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. on 11\/10\/2020;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court, 24\/09\/2020 and 07\/06\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – solo picketing on 11\/10\/2020, in Moscow, administrative conviction under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 07\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n23107\/21<\/p>\n

12\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Natalya Yuryevna KOCHUGOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Sidelnikova Polina Aleksandrovna<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

01\/08\/2020<\/td>\n

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

15\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative\u2011offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 15\/12\/2020<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n24124\/21<\/p>\n

13\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Mariya Nikolayevna PONOMARENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region Mr S. Furgal<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

08\/08\/2020<\/td>\n

article 20.2.2 \u00a7\u00a01 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nAltay Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d:<\/p>\n

– from 11.20 a.m. on 22\/08\/2020 to 24\/08\/2020, after the administrative record was drawn up and until the court hearing,<\/p>\n

– from 7.00 p.m. on 16\/06\/2021 to 12.00 a.m. on 17\/06\/2021,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Altay Regional Court, 13\/10\/2020 and 25\/08\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events – conviction for having made calls on 20\/04\/2021 to participate in an unauthorised public event scheduled for 21\/04\/2021, art. 20.2 \u00a7 8 of the CAO, fine of RUB 75,000. Final decision: Altay regional Court, 25\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

5,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n24864\/21<\/p>\n

20\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Nikolay Andreyevich NIKOLAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna<\/p>\n

Kolomna<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 14\u00a0days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 31\/01\/2021 to 01\/02\/2021;<\/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 final decision: Moscow City Court, 12\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n26904\/21<\/p>\n

08\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Oksana Viktorovna KURAKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal<\/p>\n

Irkutsk<\/p>\n

08\/08\/2020<\/td>\n

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

18\/11\/2020<\/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 final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court, 18\/11\/2020<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n26949\/21<\/p>\n

17\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Andreyevich RASSOKHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr I. Safronov<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

13\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

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

08\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention from 2.15 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 13\/07\/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 21\/07\/2020;<\/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 final decision: Moscow City Court, 08\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n27420\/21<\/p>\n

04\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Valeryevich LANETS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\ntwo fines of RUB\u00a015,000 each<\/td>\nKhabarovsk Regional Court, 05\/11\/2020 and<\/p>\n

10\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for his participation in the same public event of 10\/10\/2020 – under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 and under art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of the CAO (respective final decisions: Khabarovsk regional Court, 05\/11\/2020 and 10\/11\/2020)<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n28256\/21<\/p>\n

30\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Diana Vladimirovna LUKA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/p>\n

15\/09\/2020<\/td>\n

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

10\/11\/2020<\/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 final decision: Khabarovsk Regional Court, 10\/11\/2020<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n28259\/21<\/p>\n

30\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1981<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr N.\u00a0Platoshkin<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

25\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

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

26\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.00\u00a0p.m. to 8.15 p.m. on 25\/07\/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 06\/08\/2020;<\/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 final decision: Moscow City Court, 26\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n28549\/21<\/p>\n

02\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1989<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 15\u00a0days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

05\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 3.15\u00a0p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 00. 35 a.m. on 01\/02\/2021<\/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 final decision: Moscow City Court, 05\/02\/2021<\/p>\n

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

 <\/td>\n

5,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n28558\/21<\/p>\n

17\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Tatyana Gennadyevna LARICHEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Eysmont Mariya Olegovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally against the constitutional amendments<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

15\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

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

18\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 07.30\u00a0p.m. on 15\/07\/2020 to 03.00 a.m. on 16\/07\/2020<\/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 final decision: Moscow City Court, 18\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n28568\/21<\/p>\n

19\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksey Gennadyevich FILIMONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Fedotova Yuliya<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/p>\n

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

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

24\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n28608\/21<\/p>\n

20\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Taisiya Lvovna BEKBULATOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Gamazov Alan Olegovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr I.\u00a0Safronov<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

13\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

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

20\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 13\/07\/2020;<\/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 final decision: Moscow City Court, 20\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n29831\/21<\/p>\n

15\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Anatoliy Ivanovich KOSTENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1951<\/td>\n

Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Tagil<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

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

Political rally<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

06\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Sverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

16\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d:<\/p>\n

– from 1.50 p.m. to 5.10 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021,<\/p>\n

– from 2.50 p.m. 06\/03\/2022 to 07\/03\/2022, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/p>\n

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

5,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n30314\/21<\/p>\n

18\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Pavel Sergeyevich VERTIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally against the constitutional amendments<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

15\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

18\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 9.30\u00a0p.m. on 15\/07\/2020 to 3.30 a.m. on 16\/07\/2020;<\/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 final decision: Moscow City Court, 18\/11\/2020<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n30337\/21<\/p>\n

17\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Anna Aleksandrovna VASILYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Safronov<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

13\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

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

02\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 1.30\u00a0p.m. to 5.50 p.m. on 13\/07\/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 22\/07\/2020;<\/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, 02\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n30585\/21<\/p>\n

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

Yevgeniy Valentinovich BAKHOTSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

15\/08\/2020<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a013,000<\/td>\nKrasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

19\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.40\u00a0p.m. 15\/08\/2020 to 2.00 p.m. on 17\/08\/2020;<\/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 final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 19\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n31158\/21<\/p>\n

22\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Oksana Vladimirovna SERGEYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1973<\/td>\n

Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Velikiy Novgorod<\/td>\n

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

Velikiy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

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

05\/03\/2021<\/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 final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 05\/03\/2021<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n31379\/21<\/p>\n

12\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Vasiliy Dodiyevich VAYSENBERG<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 5\u00a0days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/03\/2021<\/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 final decision: Moscow City Court, 30\/03\/2021;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n31526\/21<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Diana Yevgenyevna YADRYSHNIKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Ruchko Irina Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/td>\n

\u00a0Rally in support of Mr A.\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n25 hours of community works<\/td>\nSverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

31\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12.30\u00a0a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021<\/td>\n5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n32172\/21<\/p>\n

11\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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

2002<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

Tula<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

09\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.50\u00a0p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021;<\/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 final decision: Tula Regional Court, 09\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n32196\/21<\/p>\n

25\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1974<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr S. Furgal<\/p>\n

Poyarkovo village, Amur Region<\/p>\n

23\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

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

07\/12\/2020<\/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 final decision: Amur Regional Court, 07\/12\/2020<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n32666\/21<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Shamil Ramilevich VALISHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna<\/p>\n

Kolomna<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 12\u00a0days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 5.00\u00a0p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 01\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/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 final decision: Moscow City Court, 12\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n