{"id":21510,"date":"2023-11-09T10:06:10","date_gmt":"2023-11-09T10:06:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21510"},"modified":"2023-11-09T10:06:10","modified_gmt":"2023-11-09T10:06:10","slug":"case-of-kapitonov-and-others-v-russia-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=21510","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF KAPITONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 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 KAPITONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 16001\/17 and 25 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 Kapitonov 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. 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.\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. The 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; Martynyuk v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a013764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38-42, 8\u00a0October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 178-88, 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. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of their administrative\u2011offence proceedings. In view of the findings in the above paragraphs, 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

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\u00a022, 4\u00a0October 2022), as well as to the previous just satisfaction awards made by the Court to some of the applicants in respect of their previous applications, 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, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that there has been 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

(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 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 \u00a0 \u00a0Peeter Roosma
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/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
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 (in euros)[i]<\/sup><\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n16001\/17<\/p>\n

11\/02\/2017<\/td>\n

Viktor Mikhaylovich KAPITONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

Manifestation in support of Ukraine, political prisoners, and N. Savchenko<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

25\/03\/2016<\/p>\n

Reading out loud the Constitution together with other persons<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

fines of RUB\u00a010,000 and 1,000<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a0250,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 26\/08\/2016 and<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2016<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

14\/12\/2016<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d:<\/p>\n

– on 25\/03\/2016, from 5.30 p.m. to 8.55\u00a0p.m.,<\/p>\n

– on 01\/09\/2016, from 7.10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. (8.30 p.m. according to the record),<\/p>\n

– on 12\/09\/2016, from 7.00 p.m. to 10.15 p.m.;<\/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: Moscow City Court, 12\/08\/2016, 26\/08\/2016, 14\/12\/2016 and 10\/04\/2017;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – solo picketing on 01\/09\/2016 against President Putin; administrative conviction under art. 20.2 \u00a7 8 of the CAO to a fine of RUB 300,000; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10\/04\/2017;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same event of 25\/03\/2016: under article 20.2 \u00a7 5 and under article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO, final decisions: Moscow City Court, 26\/08\/2016 and 12\/08\/2016<\/td>\n

6,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n34912\/17<\/p>\n

06\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Natalya Yevgenyevna NETISHINSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1962<\/td>\n

Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

Manifestation in support of Ukraine, political prisoners, and N. Savchenko<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

08\/03\/2016<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO, article\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a015,000 and RUB\u00a01,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

18\/11\/2016 (both decisions on the same date)<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Moscow City Court, 18\/11\/2016;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same public rally of 08\/03\/2016: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 and under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO, final decisions: Moscow City Court, 18\/11\/2016 (two decisions on the same date)<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n70527\/17<\/p>\n

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

Oleg Vyacheslavovich ZHITKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a0500 and fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12\/06\/2017, 3.00\u00a0p.m. to 13\/06\/2017, 1.00\u00a0p.m.; the applicant remained detained even after the record of administrative offence had been drawn up;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n71203\/17<\/p>\n

26\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

1) Aleksandr Viktorovich DYACHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/p>\n

2) Dmitriy Sergeyevich BYKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/p>\n

3) Aleksey Vladimirovich SIDOROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/p>\n

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

4) Vladimir Valeryevich VERKHOTUROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/p>\n

5) Almaz Azarovich GABDULLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/p>\n

6) Dmitriy Nikolayevich ALEKSEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1973<\/p>\n

7) Aleksandr Andreyevich GLOBIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/p>\n

8) Andrey Alekseyevich OSIYUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/p>\n

9) Aleksandr Viktorovich OLSHEVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/p>\n

10) Artem Aleksandrovich VASILYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/p>\n

11)<\/strong> Roman Gennadyevich KOSTROMSKOY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1971<\/td>\n

\u00a0Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

following investigation of A.\u00a0Navalnyy concerning D.\u00a0Medvedev<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO, article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfines from RUB\u00a01,000 to 20,000, as well as administrative detention of 10 days in respect of applicants nos. 2, 5 and 10 (Mrs\u00a0Bykov, Gabdullin and Vasilyev)<\/td>\nMoscow City Court, decisions issued between 08\/06\/2017 and<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 26\/03\/2017 to 27\/03\/2017, the 4th<\/sup> applicant\u2019s detention (Mr Verkhoturov) was not recorded; the time of apprehension of some applicants indicated in the records was at variance with the real time; Mrs Dyachenko, Sidorov, Verkhoturov, Globin and Osiyuk spent more than 3 hours in police van before having been brought to the police station;<\/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 against all the applicants \u2013 final decisions: Moscow City Court, between 08\/06\/2017 and 18\/07\/2017;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – Mrs Bykov Gabdullin and Vasilyev (applicants nos. 2, 5 and 10) were convicted twice for participating in the same public event of 26\/03\/2017: under art.\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 and under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO, sentenced to fines and detention<\/td>\n

5,000 for Mrs\u00a0Dyachenko, Sidorov, Verkhoturov, Alekseyev, Globin, Osiyuk,Olshevskiy and Kostromskoy (applicants nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 \u2013 9 and 11)<\/p>\n

6,000 for Mrs\u00a0Bykov, Gabdullin and Vasilyev (applicants nos. 2, 5 and 10)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

5.<\/td>\n74563\/17<\/p>\n

12\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Yuryevich ILYIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Manifestation in support of rotation of high-ranked state officials<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO, article\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000 and administrative detention of 5\u00a0days<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court, 06\/07\/2017 and<\/p>\n

01\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.35 p.m. on 29\/04\/2017 to 10.30\u00a0a.m. on 30\/04\/2017; the applicant remained in detention even after the said protocol was drawn up;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the administrative detention was enforced immediately after the decision of the first-instance court on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings \u2013 The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same public rally on 29\/04\/2017: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 (fine) of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n76652\/17<\/p>\n

30\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Olga Aleksandrovna POLYAKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Olga Vladimirovna Karacheva<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO, article\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 and administrative detention of 12 days<\/p>\n

administrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court, 14\/06\/2017 and<\/p>\n

20\/06\/2017<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

10\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d:<\/p>\n

– from 12\/06\/2017, 02.35 p.m. to 14\/06\/2017, in the morning, when the first instance hearings on the applicant\u2019s administrative offence case started,<\/p>\n

– from 31\/01\/2021, 5.15 p.m. to 01\/02\/2021, 9.20 a.m. when the first instance hearings on the applicant\u2019s administrative case started;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 20\/06\/2017 and 10\/02\/2021;<\/p>\n

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

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice regarding her participation in one public rally on 12\/06\/2017: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO<\/td>\n

6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n82870\/17<\/p>\n

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

Sergey ANTIPOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

\u00a0Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a01,000 and 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court, 31\/05\/2017 and<\/p>\n

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

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Moscow City Court, 31\/05\/2017 and 02\/06\/2017;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice regarding his participation in one public rally on 26\/03\/2017: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 and under art.\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n83026\/17<\/p>\n

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

Daniil Nikolayevich KONEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 11 days, and fine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court, 16\/06\/2017 and<\/p>\n

11\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 3.30 p.m. on 12\/06\/2017 to 13\/06\/2017 when the applicant\u2019s trial on the administrative offence started; the applicant remained in detention after the 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 the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 16\/06\/2017 and 11\/07\/2017;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice regarding his participation in one and the same demonstration on 12\/06\/2017: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 and under art.\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n83317\/17<\/p>\n

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

Anton Igorevich KHALTUNEN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 8\u00a0days and fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court, 20\/06\/2017 and 18\/07\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12\/06\/2017, 3.30\u00a0p.m. to 13\/06\/2017, 6.00 p.m. when the applicant\u2019s trial on the administrative offence proceedings started;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 20\/06\/2017 and 18\/07\/2017;<\/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\/06\/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for his participation on the same public assembly: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 and under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n84076\/17<\/p>\n

14\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Polina Yuryevina APANASOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 10 days and fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court, 16\/06\/2017 and 13\/06\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12\/06\/2017 to 13\/06\/2017, when the applicant\u2019s trial on the administrative offence proceedings started;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 16\/06\/2017 and 13\/06\/2017;<\/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\/06\/2017 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n84164\/17<\/p>\n

14\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Sergey Aleksandrovich MOLODTSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO, article\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000, and administrative detention of 6\u00a0days<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court 16\/06\/2017 and<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12\/06\/2017, 2.30\u00a0p.m. to 14\/06\/2017, when the applicant\u2019s trial on the administrative offence started; the applicant remained in detention even after the said 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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court 16\/06\/2017 and 06\/07\/2017;<\/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<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n553\/18<\/p>\n

13\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Pavel Alekseyevich ZAKHAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

Svetlana Sergeyevna Ratnikova<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO, article\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a010,000 and RUB 500<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court,<\/p>\n

20\/06\/2017 (both decisions of the same date)<\/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 decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 20\/06\/2017;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings \u2013 the applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same public rally: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 and under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n2947\/18<\/p>\n

13\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Yuliya Valeryevna ROSINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

Svetlana Sergeyevna Ratnikova<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 5\u00a0days and fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court, 16\/06\/2017 and<\/p>\n

23\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.35 p.m. on 12\/06\/2017 to 13\/06\/2017; the applicant remained in detention even after the said 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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 16\/06\/2017 and 23\/06\/2017;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same public rally of 12\/06\/2017: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 and under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n4553\/18<\/p>\n

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

Valeriy Borisovich SAPRYKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Russian Government and corruption<\/p>\n

Khimki, Moscow region<\/p>\n

21\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a0500 and of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nMoscow Regional Court, 29\/06\/2017 and<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 3.00 p.m. 21\/05\/2017 to 23\/05\/2017 at noon; the applicant remained in detention even after the 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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Moscow Regional Court, 29\/06\/2017 and 06\/07\/2017;<\/p>\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 rally on 21\/05\/2017: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n5196\/18<\/p>\n

29\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Gennadyevich SOKOVNIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St Petersburg City Court,<\/p>\n

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

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same public rally on 12\/06\/2017: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention of 10 days, final decision of 16\/06\/2017) and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO (fine of RUB 10,000, final decision of 06\/07\/2017)<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n8014\/18<\/p>\n

13\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Lidiya Borisovna GRIBKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Marina Vladimirovna Bukina<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Manifestation against corruption<\/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

fines of RUB\u00a0500 and of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court 13\/07\/2017 (both decisions on the same date)<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 3.00 p.m. 12\/06\/2017 to 13\/06\/2017, until the hearings 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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 13\/07\/2017;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for her participation in the same public rally: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 and under article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n21998\/18<\/p>\n

18\/04\/2018<\/td>\n

Andrey Okhizovich ZHEKSIMBAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Manifestation in support of Navalnyy and free elections<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

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

17 days respectively<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

25\/10\/2017 (both decisions of the same date)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d:<\/p>\n

– from 10.20 p.m. on 08\/10\/2017 to 2.00 p.m. on 09\/10\/2017,<\/p>\n

– from 3.45 p.m. on 04\/04\/2018 to 10.45 a.m. on 05\/04\/2019, when the applicant\u2019s trial on the administrative-offence under 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO started;<\/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: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 25\/10\/2017;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – The applicant held a solo picket in St\u00a0Petersburg, he was convicted under art. 20.2 \u00a7 2 of the CAO to an administrative detention of 9 days. Final decision: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 09\/04\/2019;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same public event: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 8 of the CAO<\/td>\n

6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n40322\/18<\/p>\n

20\/08\/2018<\/td>\n

Anastasiya Ivanovna KADETOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

(former SEMENOVA)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Sergey Aleksandrovich Golubok<\/p>\n

The Hague<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s
\nre-election as PresidentSt Petersburg05\/05\/2018Manifestation in support of A.\u00a0NavalnyyMoscow17\/01\/2021<\/td>\n		article 20.2 \u00a7 8 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

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

administrative detention of 5\u00a0days, administrative detention of 4\u00a0days<\/p>\n

administrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

08\/05\/2018 (two decisions of the same date)<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

06\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1) escorting to the 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 4.15\u00a0p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, when the applicant\u2019s trial on the administrative-offence case started,<\/p>\n

2) unlawful escorting to the police station from on 7.35 p.m. to 10.05\u00a0p.m. on 17\/01\/2021 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, while the said report was drawn up only on 25\/01\/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: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 08\/05\/2018 and Moscow City Court, 06\/04\/2021;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same public event on 05\/05\/2018: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 8 and under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO<\/td>\n

2,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n49988\/18<\/p>\n

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

Anatoliy Arkadyevich BYKOVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s
\nre-election as PresidentSt Petersburg05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n		article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

two fines of RUB\u00a0500 and\u00a010,000 respectively<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court 07\/06\/2018 (both decisions of the same date)<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 6.15 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 10.51 a.m. on 06\/05\/2018;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court 07\/06\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same public event on 05\/05\/2018: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 (fine of RUB 10,000) and under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (fine of RUB 500) of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n50059\/18<\/p>\n

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

Vsevolod Germanovich MALTSEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s
\nre-election as PresidentVoronezh05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n		article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

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

administrative detention of 2\u00a0days<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court, 26\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

18\/06\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) \u2013 unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 5.45 p.m. on 05\/05\/18 to an unspecified time;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings\u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 26\/06\/2018 and 18\/06\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same event: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 (fine) of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n50120\/18<\/p>\n

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

Aleksandr Malkhazovich ALKHAZOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

\u00a0Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s
\nre-election as PresidentSt Petersburg05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n		article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

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

administrative detention of 5\u00a0days<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court 19\/06\/2018 (both decisions on the same date)<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.20 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 9.30 a.m. on 06\/05\/2018;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court 19\/06\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same event: under art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 (fine) of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n50216\/18<\/p>\n

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

Denis Grigoryevich BONDAREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s
\nre-election as PresidentVoronezh05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n		article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

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

administrative detention of 5\u00a0days<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court 20\/06\/2018 (both decisions on the same date)<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 5.50 p.m. on 05\/05\/18 to 06\/05\/2018 in the morning;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 20\/06\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same event: under art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 (fine) of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n50261\/18<\/p>\n

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

Nikita Andreyevich MESHCHERYAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s
\nre-election as PresidentVoronezh05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n		article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

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

administrative detention of 3\u00a0days<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court 18\/06\/2018 (both decisions on the same date)<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 6.30 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, when the hearings in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case started;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 18\/06\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same public event: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 (fine) of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n50535\/18<\/p>\n

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

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

1992<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s
\nre-election as PresidentVoronezh05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n		article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a010,000, administrative detention of 5\u00a0days<\/td>\nVoronezh Regional Court, 18\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 9.10 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018 when the applicant\u2019s first instance hearing on the administrative offence started;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 18\/06\/2018 and 25\/06\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same event: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 (fine) of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n50641\/18<\/p>\n

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

Sergey Ivanovich ATAPIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s
\nre-election as PresidentVoronezh05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n		article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a010,000, administrative detention of 4\u00a0days<\/td>\nVoronezh Regional Court, 25\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

04\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 9.00 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, when the applicant\u2019s trial on the administrative-offence case started;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings\u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 25\/06\/2018 and 04\/07\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – The applicant was convicted twice for the participation in the same event: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 and under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n54646\/18<\/p>\n

25\/10\/2018<\/td>\n

Nikita Alekseyevich ZARETSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Manifestation against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s
\nre-election as PresidentSt Petersburg05\/05\/2018<\/td>\n		article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO,<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a010,000, administrative detention of 7\u00a0days<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court, 21\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d:<\/p>\n

1) from 6.20 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 10.40 a.m. on 06\/05\/2018,<\/p>\n

2) from 6.55 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 to 4.00 p.m. on 24\/01\/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: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 21\/06\/2018 and 11\/05\/2018;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators \u2013 the applicant held a solo picket in support of Mr Navalnyy in St Petersburg, on 23\/01\/2021, he was convicted and sentenced to an administrative fine of RUB\u00a010,000, final decision: 04\/02\/2021, St Petersburg City Court;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for participating in the same event on 05\/05\/2018: art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 (fine) of the CAO<\/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