{"id":21519,"date":"2023-11-09T12:10:10","date_gmt":"2023-11-09T12:10:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21519"},"modified":"2023-11-09T12:11:17","modified_gmt":"2023-11-09T12:11:17","slug":"case-of-varachenkov-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=21519","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF VARACHENKOV 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 and participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

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

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF VARACHENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 23169\/18 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 Varachenkov 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,
\nand 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. 40792\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17 January 2023).<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a011 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. Some applicants also invoked Article\u00a010; however, these complaints fall to be examined under Article\u00a011 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevi\u010dius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.\u00a037553\/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552\/01, ECHR\u00a02006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482\/06, 31\u00a0March 2009).<\/p>\n

9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568\/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204\/11, 4 December 2014, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613\/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly were not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n

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

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in in Lashmankin and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a057818\/09 and 14 others, \u00a7 489, 7\u00a0February 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\u201131, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7\u00a7 34-36, 8\u00a0October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0108\u201111, 27 November 2012, concerning excessive length of pretrial detention; Idalov v. Russia, [GC], no. 5826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 154-58, 22 May 2012, about delays in examination of the complaints against detention orders; 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; Lashmankin and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0359, concerning restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events; 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 the administrative\u2011offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 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

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), 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 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Peeter Roosma
\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\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

Year of birth<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nName of the public event<\/strong><\/p>\n

Location<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Administrative charges<\/strong><\/td>\nPenalty (relevant article of the CAO, if relevant)<\/strong><\/td>\nFinal domestic decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

Court Name<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Other complaints under well-established case\u2011law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

1.<\/td>\n23169\/18<\/p>\n

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

Vasiliy Andreyevich VARACHENKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/p>\n

Aleksandr Maksimovich RYABUSHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/p>\n

Dmitriy Romanovich GRUZDEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

Rally against corruption<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\n

Mr\u00a0Varachenkov: administrative detention of 15\u00a0days (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1) and fine of RUB\u00a015,000 (art. 20.2. 6 \u00a7 1)<\/p>\n

Mr Ryabushkin: administrative detention of 15 days (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1) and fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (art. 20.2. 6 \u00a7 1)<\/p>\n

Mr Gruzdev: fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

(art. 20.2. 6 \u00a7 1)<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court:<\/p>\n

08\/11\/2017 and 28\/03\/2018 (Mr\u00a0Varachenkov),<\/p>\n

14\/11\/2017 and 14\/03\/2018 (Mr\u00a0Ryabushkin),<\/p>\n

28\/03\/2018<\/p>\n

(Mr\u00a0Gruzdev)<\/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; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d: from 1.30 p.m. on 05\/11\/2017 to 06\/11\/2017 (Mr\u00a0Gruzdev), and from 1.30 p.m. on 05\/11\/2017 to 07\/11\/2017, the hearings in the applicants\u2019 administrative-offence cases (Mr\u00a0Varachenkov and Mr Ryabushkin);<\/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, 08\/11\/2017, 14\/11\/2017, 14\/03\/2018 and 28\/03\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings \u2013 Mrs\u00a0Varachenkov and Ryabushkin were convicted twice for participation in the same public event on 05\/11\/2017: under art.19.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2. 6 \u00a7\u00a01 of the CAO (administrative fines)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n23799\/18<\/p>\n

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

Yuriy Viktorovich KAZAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1965<\/td>\n

Oleg Aleksandrovich Yelanchik<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 15\u00a0days<\/p>\n

(art. 19.3 \u00a7\u00a01),<\/p>\n

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

(art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 10\/11\/2017 and 30\/03\/2018<\/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\/11\/2017 to 07\/11\/2017, the hearing in the administrative offence case;<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/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, 10\/11\/2017 and 30\/03\/2018;<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n24367\/18<\/p>\n

12\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Daniil Valentinovich VORONTSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

Nadezhda Viktorovna Yermolayeva<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 15\u00a0days<\/p>\n

(art. 19.3 \u00a7\u00a01),<\/p>\n

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

(art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 17\/11\/2017 and 26\/03\/2018<\/td>\nArt. 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, 17\/11\/2017 and 26\/03\/2018;<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n24743\/18<\/p>\n

08\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Maksim Mikhaylovich KOLYBELNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Irina Aleksandrovna Yatsenko<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2<\/p>\n

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

administrative detention of 15\u00a0days<\/p>\n

(art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7\u00a01),<\/p>\n

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

(art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 08\/11\/2017 and 26\/03\/2018<\/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 p.m. on 05\/11\/2017 to 07\/11\/2017, the 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 – in respect of both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Moscow City Court, 08\/11\/2017 and 26\/03\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event of 05\/11\/2017: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of the CAO (fine)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n24799\/18<\/p>\n

13\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Andrey Vladimirovich IOSS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Oleg Aleksandrovich Yelanchik<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2<\/p>\n

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

administrative detention of 15\u00a0days<\/p>\n

(art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7\u00a01),<\/p>\n

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

(art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 13\/11\/2017 and 12\/04\/2018<\/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 p.m. on 05\/11\/2017 to 07\/11\/2017, the hearing in the administrative-offence case; no record of the detention was drawn up;<\/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, 13\/11\/2017 and 12\/04\/2018;<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n30608\/18<\/p>\n

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

Alexey Sergeyevich ZELENOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2<\/p>\n

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

fines of RUB\u00a01,000 (art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1) and RUB\u00a015,000<\/p>\n

(art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 06\/03\/2018 and 28\/03\/2018<\/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 3.30 p.m. on 12\/06\/2017 to 0.40 a.m. on 13\/06\/2017; the time indicated in the record of the administrative arrest was at variance with the time argued by the applicant;<\/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, 06\/03\/2018 and 28\/03\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO (fine of RUB\u00a01,000), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of the CAO (fine of RUB 15,000)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n31415\/18<\/p>\n

14\/06\/2018<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Valikhanovich MUSIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Rally against constitutional amendments<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

16\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

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

article\u00a020.2<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 8<\/p>\n

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 500<\/p>\n

(art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/p>\n

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

St Petersburg City Court, both decisions of the same date<\/p>\n

29\/03\/2018<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

21\/07\/2020<\/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 2.00 a.m. on 18\/07\/2020 to 3.20 p.m. on 19\/07\/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 \u2013 final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 29\/03\/2018 and 21\/07\/2020;<\/p>\n

Art. 11 (1) – restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events \u2013 the local administration refused to authorise the pickets (\u201ccubes\u201d) the applicant planned to organise \u201cwithin a radius of 15 meters from the cube\u201d on 12-20\/08\/2017 (daily pickets to inform of the initiatives of Mr Navalnyy). The courts rejected the applicant\u2019s complaint (appeal on 18\/12\/2017, St Petersburg City Court, last final decision: 07\/09\/2018, Single Judge of the Supreme Court). The administration considered that the aim \u201cmight be interpreted too broadly\u201d, without specification of what types of issues would be raised (political\/ economic\/ social\/ cultural), and it questioned the form of the event. There was no proposal for an alternative location. The pickets were not held as a result;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – In respect of the proceedings related to the public event of 28\/01\/2018: the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (fine of RUB 500), and under art.\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO (fine of RUB\u00a010,000)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n38498\/18<\/p>\n

06\/08\/2018<\/td>\n

Anton Olegovich ROZHANSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/td>\n

Opposition rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a01,000 (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court, 08\/02\/2018 and 30\/03\/2018<\/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 4.50 p.m. on 12\/06\/2017 to 2.15 a.m. on 13\/06\/2017; the time indicated in the record of the administrative arrest was at variance with the time argued by the applicant;<\/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, 08\/02\/2018 and 30\/03\/2018;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 (fine of RUB\u00a01,000), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of the CAO (fine of RUB 10,000)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n47202\/18<\/p>\n

19\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

Ilya Mikhaylovich GANTVARG<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Maksim Vladimirovich Olenichev<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Rally against Mr\u00a0Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2<\/p>\n

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

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

(art.19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a015,000 (art.20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court, 19\/03\/2018 and 26\/04\/2018<\/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 5.30 p.m. on 12\/03\/2018 to 13\/03\/2018, the 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 19\/03\/2018 and 26\/04\/2018;<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n47908\/18<\/p>\n

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

Sergey Andreyevich BOYKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Andzhelika Viktorovna Chernyavskaya<\/p>\n

Oktyabrskiy<\/td>\n

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Novosibirsk<\/p>\n

30\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

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

of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNovosibirsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

27\/03\/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

– from 4.00 p. m. on 21\/05\/2018 to an unspecified time on 22\/05\/2018, the hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative offence case related to calls to participate in an unauthorised public event on 05\/05\/2018,<\/p>\n

– from 2.40 p.m. on 09\/09\/2018 to the hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative offence case related to calls to participate in an unauthorised public event of the same day<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events:<\/p>\n

Administrative conviction:<\/p>\n

1) under art. 20.2 \u00a7 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised rally on 05\/05\/2018 published in Twitter; 30 days of administrative detention; final decision: Moscow City Court, 25\/05\/2018;<\/p>\n

2) under art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a08 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised rally on 09\/09\/2018 published in social network Vkontakte; 30 days of administrative detention; final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 12\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n49960\/18<\/p>\n

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

Anton Yevgenyevich ALYABYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally against Mr Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

Voronezh<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 5\u00a0days (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court, 21\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

05\/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 6.10 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, the 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 21\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

05\/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 participation in the same public event: under art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO (fine)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n49965\/18<\/p>\n

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

Denis Sergeyevich PYLEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally against Mr Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

Voronezh<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 5\u00a0days (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court, 25\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

04\/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 7.10 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, the 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 25\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

04\/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 participation in the same public event: under art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO (fine)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n50046\/18<\/p>\n

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

Sergey Gennadyevich KARPENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally against Mr Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

Voronezh<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 2\u00a0days (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a05,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05)<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court, 21\/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 7.00 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, the 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 21\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

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 participation in the same public event: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of the CAO (fine)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n50537\/18<\/p>\n

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

Vladislav Dmitriyevich TOLSTOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally against Mr Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

Voronezh<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 5\u00a0days (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine RUB\u00a010,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court (both decisions on the same date)<\/p>\n

21\/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 7.15 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, the 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 21\/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 participation in the same public event: under art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05 of the CAO (fine)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n50820\/18<\/p>\n

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

Vasiliy Aleksandrovich KOREPANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally against Mr Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB 500 (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (art.\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court (both decisions of the same date)<\/p>\n

19\/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, from 5.30 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St Petersburg 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 participation in the same public event: under Art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO (fine of RUB\u00a0500), and under Art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (fine of RUB 10,000)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n50823\/18<\/p>\n

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

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

1997<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally against Mr Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

Voronezh<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 5\u00a0days (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court (both decisions of the same date),<\/p>\n

20\/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 6.00 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, the hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all 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 participation in the same public event: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention) and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO (fine)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n50828\/18<\/p>\n

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

Yaroslav Yevgenyevich ZUBOTAREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally against Mr Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

Voronezh<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 5\u00a0days (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

Voronezh Regional Court (both decisions on the same date)<\/p>\n

15\/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 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d from 6.40 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, the hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 15\/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 participation in the same public event: under art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 (administrative detention), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO (fine)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n51361\/18<\/p>\n

18\/10\/2018<\/td>\n

Mariya Vladimirovna ALEKHINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally in support of Telegram<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

Rally of four people against police abuse<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

28\/11\/2020<\/p>\n

Rally in commemoration of the First World War (the applicant could not participate because she was apprehended by the police before)<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

22\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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

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

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

community works of 100\u00a0hours<\/p>\n

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

administrative detention of 15\u00a0days<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

20\/04\/2018<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/03\/2021<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/06\/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 on 02\/12\/2020 from 6.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.;<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – the applicant was under house arrest from 29\/01\/2021 to 20\/09\/2021. The domestic courts extended the measure by using standard reasoning and listing the grounds provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure (such as the gravity of the offence, the possibility for the applicant to abscond, put pressure on witnesses, and interfere with the investigation), without linking them to the circumstances of the applicant\u2019s case or verifying whether these grounds remained valid at the advanced stages of the proceedings. The appellate courts reproduced the wording of the first\u2011instance courts\u2019 decisions and dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeals against the house arrest orders;<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against the decision of the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow of 23\/07\/2021 extending the applicant\u2019s house arrest considered by the Moscow City Court on 19\/08\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Moscow City Court, 20\/04\/2018, 12\/03\/2021 and 30\/06\/2021;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 23\/06\/2021 and 08\/07\/2021 were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO<\/td>\n

6,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n58337\/18<\/p>\n

18\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Ivan Sergeyevich MONIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally against Mr Putin\u2019s re\u2011election as President<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

administrative detention of 5\u00a0days (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a015,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court (both decisions of the same date)<\/p>\n

29\/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 from 5.50 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 06\/05\/2018, the 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 29\/05\/2018;<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n58871\/18<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2018<\/td>\n

Vladimir Yuryevich SHIPITSYN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1969<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally for peace and cooperation with western countries<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

01\/05\/2018<\/p>\n

Rally in support of Crimean Tatars<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

18\/05\/2020<\/td>\n

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

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

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

fine of RUB 900 (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7 5)<\/p>\n

community works of 40 hours<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court, 30\/05\/2018 and 26\/06\/2018<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

22\/12\/2020<\/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 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d:<\/p>\n

– from 12.30 p.m. to 11.45 p.m. on 01\/05\/2018,<\/p>\n

– from 12.50 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 08\/05\/2018, the hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case,<\/p>\n

– from 3.00 p.m. on 01\/07\/2020 to 02\/07\/2020, the 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 30\/05\/2018, 26\/06\/2018 and 22\/12\/2020;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event of 01\/05\/2018: under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 (fine of RUB 900), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO (fine of RUB\u00a010,000)<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n59755\/18<\/p>\n

04\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Aleksandra Aleksandrovna TIMOFEYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Aleksey Vladimirovich Glukhov<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

“Hybrid rally” (march and meeting) in support of A.\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB\u00a010,000, community works of 20\u00a0hours (two separate proceedings under art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05), and fine of RUB 500 (under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1)<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 07\/06\/2018, 05\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

14\/06\/2018<\/td>\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: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 07\/06\/2018, 05\/06\/2018 and 14\/06\/2018<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted three times for participating in the same public event: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 (two separate proceedings resulted in fine of RUB\u00a010,000 and 20\u00a0hours of community works), and under art. 19 \u00a7 3.1 of the CAO (fine of RUB\u00a0500)<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n59761\/18<\/p>\n

04\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Sergey Vladimirovich YEGOROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Aleksey Vladimirovich Glukhov<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

“Hybrid rally” (march and meeting) in support of A.\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

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

article\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\n

community works of 20\u00a0hours (art.\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5),<\/p>\n

fine of RUB 500 (art. 19.3 \u00a7 1)<\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 05\/06\/2018 and<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2018<\/td>\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: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 05\/06\/2018 and 15\/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 participation in the same public event: under art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO (fine), and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (community works)<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n8435\/20<\/p>\n

24\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Yuliya Yevgenyevna CHAPURINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Igor Nikolayevich Sholokhov<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

\u201cHybrid\u201d rally against construction of waste incineration plant<\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk<\/p>\n

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

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n

two fines of RUB\u00a010,000 each<\/td>\nArkhangelsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

05\/12\/2019 and 17\/10\/2019<\/td>\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: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 17\/10\/2019, 05\/12\/2019 and 02\/06\/2022;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 and under art. 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of the CAO (both times he was punished by a fine);<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – solo-picket against the war in Ukraine in Arkhangelsk on 03\/04\/2022; administrative conviction under article 20.3.3 \u00a7\u00a01 of the CAO, fine of RUB 40,000; final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 02\/06\/2022<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n11142\/21<\/p>\n

01\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Vitaliy Andreyevich SOKOLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/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

08\/09\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police office for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 10.30\u00a0p.m. on 15\/07\/2020 to 5.20 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, 08\/09\/2020<\/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