{"id":21522,"date":"2023-11-09T12:18:18","date_gmt":"2023-11-09T12:18:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21522"},"modified":"2023-11-09T12:18:18","modified_gmt":"2023-11-09T12:18:18","slug":"case-of-kirpichev-kirpichenko-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=21522","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF KIRPICHEV (KIRPICHENKO) 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. 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 KIRPICHEV (KIRPICHENKO) AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 44850\/18 and 27 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 Kirpichev (Kirpichenko) 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. Some of them also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. JURISDICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.\u00a040792\/10 and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17\u00a0January 2023).<\/p>\n

III. Locus standi of Mr BORODIN\u2019s widow (application no.\u00a035843\/21)<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. The Court observes that Mr\u00a0V. Borodin (applicant in application no.\u00a035843\/21) died while the case was pending before the Court. His wife, Ms Borodina, expressed her wish to continue the proceedings in his stead (see appended table).<\/p>\n

8. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or close relatives may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see\u00a0Je\u010dius v. Lithuania, no.\u00a034578\/97, \u00a7 41, ECHR 2000-IX, and concerning, more specifically, complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, Savenko and Others v. Russia, no. 13918\/06, \u00a7 52, 14 September 2021, and references cited therein). In the present case, the applicant\u2019s widow submitted documents confirming that she was the applicant\u2019s heir. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Ms\u00a0Borodina has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late husband (ibidem, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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

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

14. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

15. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no.\u00a05865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a063-65, 13\u00a0February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and 5\u00a0others, \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; Grigoryev and Igamberdiyeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 10970\/12, 12 February 2019, about inadequate redress for unlawful deprivation of liberty in the context of administrative-offence prosecution for participation in public events; 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); Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430\/06 and 3 others, \u00a7\u00a7 25-44, 31 May 2016, as to the applicant\u2019s absence at the appeal hearings; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519\/20, \u00a7\u00a7 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant\u2019s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in administrative offence proceedings in order to identify, locate and arrest him; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501\/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; Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a049588\/12 and 3 others, \u00a7\u00a7 99-145, 5 April 2022, concerning prosecution for administrative offences for calling on voters not to vote for a specific political party or to abstain from voting in elections; mutatis mutandis, S\u00fcrek v.\u00a0Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682\/95, \u00a7 58, ECHR 1999-IV, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 197-201, 17 July 2018, concerning administrative conviction for discreditation of the Russian Army in the context of anti-war protest actions; Martynyuk v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a013764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a038-42, 8\u00a0October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 178\u201188, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention; Korneyeva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 62-65, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.<\/p>\n

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

16. The Court has further examined the complaint under Article 6 raised by the applicant in application no. 35843\/21, and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of that provision. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

17. 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 12 and 15 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.<\/p>\n

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

18. 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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that Ms Borodina, the widow of the applicant, Mr Borodin, in application no. 35843\/21, has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late husband;<\/p>\n

4. 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, dismisses the complaints raised under Article 6 of the Convention by the applicant in application no. 35843\/21 as inadmissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

6. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case\u2011law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n

7. 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) hat from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 November 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Peeter Roosma
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\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\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

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

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

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

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

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

Administrative charges<\/strong><\/td>\nPenalty<\/strong><\/td>\nFinal domestic decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

1.<\/td>\n44850\/18<\/p>\n

11\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Mikhaylovich KIRPICHEV (KIRPICHENKO)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally against falsification of presidential elections<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Rally against the war in Ukraine<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

03\/03\/2022<\/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

administrative detention of 10 days (art.\u00a019.3 \u00a7\u00a01), fine of RUB\u00a015,000 (art. 20.2 \u00a7\u00a05)<\/p>\n

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

St Petersburg City Court, 16\/03\/2018 and<\/p>\n

19\/04\/2018<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

05\/04\/2022<\/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 7.00 p.m. on 13\/03\/2018 to 14\/03\/2028,<\/p>\n

– from 7.30 p.m. on 03\/03\/2022 to 04\/03\/2022.<\/p>\n

Both times the applicant was detained until the hearings in his administrative-offence cases;<\/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, 16\/03\/2018, 19\/04\/2018, 14\/05\/2018 and 05\/04\/2022;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – administrative conviction under art. 5.12 \u00a7 1 of the CAO (production or dissemination of printed, audio-visual, or other campaigning material in breach of the electoral legislation) for distribution of leaflets against the elections on 10\/02\/2018; fine of RUB 1,000; final decision: 14\/05\/2018, St\u00a0Petersburg City Court;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 14\/03\/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (the appeal was considered on 16\/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. 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
2.<\/td>\n52954\/18<\/p>\n

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

Aleksey Sergeyevich BELOZEROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

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

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

fine of RUB\u00a0170,000<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court, 16\/05\/2018 and<\/p>\n

18\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

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

1) from 12\/06\/2017 to 14\/06\/2017, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case (complaint raised in the compensation proceedings following the quashing of the applicant\u2019s administrative conviction under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO for his participation in a rally in 2017; his action was partly granted, and he was awarded about 580\u00a0EUR for pre-trial detention and post-conviction detention; final decision: Single Judge of the Supreme Court, 08\/12\/2020),<\/p>\n

2) from 4.30 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 (the applicant spent more than 4 hours in the police van) to 06\/05\/2018, 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 – final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 16\/05\/2018 and 18\/05\/2018;<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n56135\/18<\/p>\n

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

Andrey Andreyevich GRAF<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

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

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

Anti\u2011government rally<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

07\/10\/2018<\/td>\n

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

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

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

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

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

26\/07\/2018<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

11\/10\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.15 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018 to 9.15 a.m. on 06\/05\/2018.<\/p>\n

Following the discontinuation of the proceedings under art. 19.3 \u00a7 1 of the CAO, the applicant brought a compensation action and was granted RUB 3,000 (38 EUR). Final decision: 24\/12\/2020, Supreme Court of Russia;<\/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 sets of administrative-offence proceedings which ended with the final decisions of St Petersburg City Court on 24\/07\/2018 and of 11\/10\/2018<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n25403\/19<\/p>\n

23\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksey Nikolayevich NIKITIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1969<\/td>\n

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

Krasnodar<\/p>\n

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

“Stroll”\/rally against raising prices for public transport (14 participants)<\/p>\n

Krasnodar<\/p>\n

24\/12\/2018<\/p>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Krasnodar<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krasnodar Regional Court, decision of 25\/09\/2018<\/p>\n

adopted in the applicant\u2019s absence and received on 26\/10\/2018<\/p>\n

Krasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

06\/02\/2019<\/p>\n

Krasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

09\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 6.00 p.m. on 26\/12\/2018 to at least 2.00 p.m. on 27\/12\/2018, 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: Krasnodar Regional Court, 25\/09\/2018, 06\/02\/2019 and 06\/03\/2019;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) \u2013 applicant\u2019s absence from administrative-offence proceedings – The applicant came to the appeal hearings scheduled on 25\/09\/2018. He waited for 6 hours in front of the judge\u2019s office, in vain, he was never called. On 26\/09\/2018 he complained to the president of the court. By a letter of 26\/10\/2018, the Krasnodar Regional Court answered that the appeal decision was adopted on 25\/09\/2018. There is no assessment in the decision of the issue of the applicant\u2019s absence;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – Krasnodar, 20\/12\/2018, solo demonstration against rising prices for public transport; administrative conviction under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO to a fine of RUB\u00a010,000; final decision: Krasnodar Regional Court, 06\/03\/2019;<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 27\/12\/2018 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
5.<\/td>\n28534\/21<\/p>\n

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

Vadim Vilyevich KHAYRULLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Kaliningrad<\/p>\n

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

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

5 days<\/td>\n

Kaliningrad Region Court<\/p>\n

11\/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: from 1.30 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 11.00 a.m. on 02\/02\/2021, hearing on 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 – final decisions: Kaliningrad Region Court, 11\/02\/2021 and 23\/03\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – Solo picketing in support to Belarus on 29\/08\/2020 in Kaliningrad; the applicant was convicted under art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of the CAO and sentenced to an administrative fine of RUB\u00a020,000; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, 23\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n28773\/21<\/p>\n

11\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Viktorovich TOLMACHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Tbilisi, Georgia<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Irkutsk<\/p>\n

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

Rally in support to<\/p>\n

Mr A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Irkutsk<\/p>\n

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

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

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

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 15,000<\/p>\n

administrative detention of<\/p>\n

9 days<\/td>\n

Irkutsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

23\/09\/2021<\/p>\n

Irkutsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

29\/04\/2021<\/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 – final decisions: Irkutsk Regional Court, 29\/04\/2021 and 23\/09\/2021<\/td>\n5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n29826\/21<\/p>\n

21\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Gleb Maksimovich SHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich<\/p>\n

Belgorod<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Belgorod<\/p>\n

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

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

20 hours<\/td>\n

Belgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n30438\/21<\/p>\n

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

Boris Yulyevich KAGARLITSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1958<\/td>\n

Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich<\/p>\n

Podolsk<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

16\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 8.30 p.m. on 15\/07\/2020 to 2.30 a.m. on 16\/07\/2020;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 16\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n31692\/21<\/p>\n

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

Ramazan Ramazanovich RADZHABOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

16\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.51 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 to 1.00 a.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 administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 16\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n32169\/21<\/p>\n

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

Andrey Ramilevich BOYKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

28\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 10.08 a.m. to 4.35 p.m. on 02\/02\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 28\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n32719\/21<\/p>\n

14\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Konstantin Olegovich DYDZINSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally (collection of signatures) against constitutional amendments<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2<\/p>\n

\u00a7 8\u00a0of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB\u00a0200,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

14\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 10.00 p.m. on 15\/07\/2020 to 4.30 a.m. on 16\/07\/2020, while the said record was drawn up only on 30\/07\/2020;<\/td>\n6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n32752\/21<\/p>\n

01\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Kamil Ramilevich GALEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Kurakina Polina Sergeyevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 05\/02\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 8 (2) – restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies – use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and his subsequent conviction<\/td>\n

9,800<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n33306\/21<\/p>\n

13\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Anton Ivanovich SORVACHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/p>\n

Petr Viktorovich BORKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/p>\n

Petr Viktorovich SHVAREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

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

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a010,000, 17,000 and 10,000 respectively of the three applicants<\/td>\nSupreme Court Komi Republic, 31\/03\/2021, 07\/04\/2021 and<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2021, respectively<\/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 – final decisions: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 31\/03\/2021, 07\/04\/2021 and 07\/04\/2021 (in respect of each of three applicants)<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n33456\/21<\/p>\n

01\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1974<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nCommemoration of Boris Nemtsov<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

29\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

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

01\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, in the morning on 23\/01\/2023 (in order to prevent the applicant\u2019s participation in the rally in support to Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Navalnyy), then from 7.00 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 to 24\/01\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 02\/02\/2021 and 05\/07\/2022;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events – conviction for having made calls on 17\/01\/2021 to participate in an unauthorised public event in support of Mr A. Navalnyy scheduled for 23\/01\/2021, art. 20.2 \u00a7 8 of the CAO, administrative detention of 20\u00a0days. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 02\/02\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – On 06\/03\/2022 the applicant held a solo picket in St\u00a0Petersburg, against the war in Ukraine. He was administratively convicted, under art. 20.3.3 \u00a7\u00a01 of the CAO (discreditation of the Russian army) and fined to<\/p>\n

RUB 45,000. Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 05\/07\/2022<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n33806\/21<\/p>\n

03\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1976<\/td>\n

Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Stavropol<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Smolensk<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a014,000<\/td>\nSmolensk Regional Court<\/p>\n

17\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Smolensk Regional Court, 17\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n34091\/21<\/p>\n

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

Albina Romanovna YANOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Vladivostok<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.56 p.m. to 10.20 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 20\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n35049\/21<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Pavel Yuryevich TEMNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

21\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 11 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 02\/02\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 21\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n35139\/21<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Andreyevich SKIRTA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 3\u00a0days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12.30 p.m. to 09.00 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 08\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n35140\/21<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Kirill Aleksandrovich KARPOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 5.00 and 11.10 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 19\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n35144\/21<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Georgiy Andreyevich SAPOZHNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

10\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 5.10 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 to 7.00 p.m. on 25\/01\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 10\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n35147\/21<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Anna Yuryevna KUTSENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 11.00 a.m. to 4.10 p.m. on 02\/02\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 20\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n35165\/21<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1996<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 10.30 a.m. to 5.10 p.m. on 02\/02\/2021; the applicant spent 2h30 in the police van;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 20\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n35166\/21<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Oleg Anatolyevich MAKAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

26\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 26\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n35188\/21<\/p>\n

18\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1975<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

18\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 5.00 p.m. 23\/01\/2021 to 7.00 p.m. on 25\/01\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case\u2019<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 18\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n35688\/21<\/p>\n

02\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksey Aleksandrovich GRUZDEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Kurochko Yelena Viktorovna<\/p>\n

Vologda<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Vologda<\/p>\n

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

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

11\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n35818\/21<\/p>\n

27\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Mikhaylovich SKVORTSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/td>\n

Rally in support of<\/p>\n

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Lipetsk<\/p>\n

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

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

18\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.00 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 to 2.00 a.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 administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 18\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n35843\/21<\/p>\n

31\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Vadim Dmitriyevich BORODIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/p>\n

In March 2022 the applicant died. His widow Ms\u00a0T.\u00a0Borodina expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf<\/td>\n

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

Mr A Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Magnitogorsk<\/p>\n

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

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

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n36391\/21<\/p>\n

07\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Yana Igorevna TEPLITSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the persons accused in the “Set” criminal case<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12.45 p.m. to 10.20 p.m. on 22\/06\/2020, no record of the applicant\u2019s 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 administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 02\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

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

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