{"id":21530,"date":"2023-11-09T13:04:03","date_gmt":"2023-11-09T13:04:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21530"},"modified":"2023-11-09T13:04:03","modified_gmt":"2023-11-09T13:04:03","slug":"case-of-saranchuk-and-others-v-russia-15326-19-and-24-others-the-applicants-complained-of-the-disproportionate-measures-taken-against-them-as-organisers-or-participants-of-public-assemblies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21530","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF SARANCHUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 15326\/19 and 24 others. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies"},"content":{"rendered":"

The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article\u00a011 of the Convention.<\/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

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

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF SARANCHUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 15326\/19 and 24 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 Saranchuk 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.\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 2006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.\u00a0Moldova, no.\u00a033482\/06, 31\u00a0March 2009).<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in 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; 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); Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921\/17 and 7202\/18, \u00a7\u00a7 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 15-26, 18 January 2022, concerning interference in the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression in a form of administrative conviction for petty hooliganism without specific offence elements; Martynyuk v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a013764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38-42, 8 October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 178-88, related to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.<\/p>\n

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

14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative-offence 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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under 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 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
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<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

1.<\/td>\n15326\/19<\/p>\n

11\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

Irina Vladimirovna SARANCHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Tbilisi, Georgia<\/td>\n

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

Irkutsk<\/p>\n

10\/10\/2020<\/p>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Irkutsk<\/p>\n

04\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

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

Article 20.2 \u00a7 6 of CAO<\/td>\n

fine of RUB\u00a011,000<\/p>\n

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

Irkutsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Irkutsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

28\/11\/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: Irkutsk Regional Court, 03\/03\/2021 and 28\/11\/2018<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n20684\/19<\/p>\n

02\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

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

1982<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

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

Smolensk<\/p>\n

01\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSmolensk Regional Court<\/p>\n

03\/10\/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: Smolensk Regional Court, 03\/10\/2018 and 10\/10\/2018;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events – conviction for an administrative offence for calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event (rally against the pension reform on 09\/09\/2018), art. 20.2 \u00a7 8 of the CAO, administrative detention of one day. Final decision: Smolensk Regional Court, 10\/10\/2018<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n28028\/19<\/p>\n

14\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Nataliya Mikhaylovna SAVOSKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

Kiselyov Roman Denisovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr O. Sentsov<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

14\/11\/2018<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

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

– escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; from 5.00 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. on 18\/06\/2018,<\/p>\n

– escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.20 p.m. to 7.50 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Moscow City Court, 14\/11\/2018 and 11\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n28491\/19<\/p>\n

16\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Olga Igorevna KUZNETSOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1962<\/td>\n

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

\u201cHybrid\u201d rally against the pension reform<\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk<\/p>\n

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

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

Arkhangelsk<\/p>\n

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

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO, article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n

two fines of RUB\u00a014,000 and 15,000 respectively<\/p>\n

two fines of RUB\u00a025,000 and 15,000 respectively<\/td>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 20\/11\/2018 and<\/p>\n

29\/01\/2019<\/p>\n

Arkhangelsk regional Court, 12\/03\/2021 and<\/p>\n

03\/06\/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:<\/p>\n

– from 2.30 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 to 24\/01\/2021, the hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative offence case,<\/p>\n

– unrecorded escorting on 21\/04\/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: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 20\/11\/2018, 29\/01\/2019 12\/03\/2021 and 03\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n30007\/19<\/p>\n

18\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Germanovich GUSEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Grachev Anton Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Gatchina<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the accused in “Novoye Velichiye” and “Set” criminal cases<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

28\/10\/2018<\/td>\n

Article 20.2.2 \u00a7\u00a01 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

13\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

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

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

– from 2.40 p.m. on 28\/10\/2018 to 29\/10\/2018,<\/p>\n

– from 9.13 p.m. on 06\/08\/2019 to 7.00 p.m. on 08\/08\/2019.<\/p>\n

Both times, the applicant was detained until the hearings in his administrative-offence case;<\/p>\n

2) unlawful escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 23\/01\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – on 03\/08\/2019 the applicant pronounced a speech during an authorised public rally for fair elections in St Petersburg. On 06\/08\/2019 he was arrested and escorted to a police station where he was charged with an administrative offence under art. 20.1 \u00a7 1 of the CAO (petty hooliganism) for having used a swearword in his speech in respect of Mr Putin. He was further convicted for administrative offence and sentenced to a 10-day administrative detention. Final decision: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 14\/08\/2019;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events – conviction under art. 20.2 \u00a7 2 of the CAO, administrative detention of 8 days for calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event scheduled for 23\/01\/2021 in support to Mr A Navalnyy. Final decision: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court, 04\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n37292\/19<\/p>\n

24\/06\/2019<\/td>\n

Yegor Mikhaylovich KARASEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally against isolation of Russian internet<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

10\/03\/2019<\/p>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

18\/04\/2019<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

03\/06\/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:<\/p>\n

– from 12.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 10\/03\/2019,<\/p>\n

– from 11.50 p.m. on 02\/02\/2021 to 8.30 a.m. on 03\/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, 18\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n39338\/19<\/p>\n

12\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Ilya Vladimirovich KOROBKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

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

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

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

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

16\/01\/2019<\/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 5.20\u00a0p.m. on 09\/09\/2018 to 10\/09\/2018;<\/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: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 16\/01\/2019<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n42030\/19<\/p>\n

19\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Boris Vadimovich FEDYUKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

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

Samara<\/p>\n

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

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

Samara<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

Samara Regional Court<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2019<\/p>\n

Samara Regional Court<\/p>\n

20\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, on 08\/11\/2018 and on 26\/04\/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: Samara Regional Court, 31\/01\/2019 and 20\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n42221\/19<\/p>\n

16\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Viktor Romanovich KAZANTSEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

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

Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

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

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

Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

17\/01\/2019<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

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

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

– from 4.00 p.m. to 09.00 p.m. on 05\/05\/2018, while the said record was drawn up only on 15\/05\/2018,<\/p>\n

– from 1.20 p.m. to 10.55 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021, while the said record was drawn up only on 12\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

2) unlawful escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 11\/03\/2021, and Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 20\/04\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events – conviction under art. 20.2 \u00a7 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB\u00a020,000 for calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event scheduled for 23\/01\/2021 in support to Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Navalnyy. Final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 11\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n42683\/19<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Gennadyevich GUDKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/td>\n

Rally in support to fair elections to Mosgorduma<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

14\/07\/2019<\/p>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

01\/08\/2019<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

29\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

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

– from 2.55 p.m. to 5.55 p.m. on 27\/07\/2019,<\/p>\n

– from 3.30 p.m. on 28\/07\/2019 to 5.13 p.m. on 30\/07\/2019, 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:<\/p>\n

Moscow City Court, 01\/08\/2019, 04\/10\/2019 and 29\/09\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events – conviction under art. 20.2 \u00a7 2 of the CAO, administrative detention of 10 days, for an administrative offence of calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event scheduled for 27\/07\/2019 for fair elections to Mosgorduma. Final decision: Moscow City Court, 04\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n10059\/21<\/p>\n

16\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Maksim Ruslanovich KONYUKHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 15 days (partly exempted for health reasons by the Moscow City Court)<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

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

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 05\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n16344\/21<\/p>\n

08\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1993<\/td>\n

Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

24\/03\/2020<\/td>\n

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

10\/09\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; from 5.30 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. on 24\/03\/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, 10\/09\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n24360\/21<\/p>\n

17\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Yevgeniya Vladimirovna VAZHENINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Furgal<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/p>\n

07\/11\/2020<\/p>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Furgal<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

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

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

administrative detention of 9\u00a0days<\/p>\n

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

Khabarovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Khabarovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

30\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

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

– from 2.00 p.m. on 07\/11\/2020 to 10.00 a.m. on 09\/11\/2020,<\/p>\n

– from 1.00 p.m. on 15\/02\/2021 to 16\/02\/2021, the hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative offence case,<\/p>\n

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

6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n25053\/21<\/p>\n

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

Aleksandr Vasilyevich VASILYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/td>\n

Rally in support of the governor of the Khabarovsk Region, Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0Furgal<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 8 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 20 days<\/td>\nKhabarovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

20\/10\/2020<\/td>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO<\/td>\n5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n26915\/21<\/p>\n

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

Mikhail Yevgenyevich PARFENYUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Tbilisi<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Irkutsk<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention of 10 days<\/td>\nIrkutsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

28\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Irkutsk regional Court, 28\/01\/2021<\/td>\n5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n28225\/21<\/p>\n

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

Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna KLEPIKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

11\/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 4.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 11\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n28370\/21<\/p>\n

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

Lada Sergeyevna SOKOLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nPolitical rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

29\/05\/2020<\/td>\n

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

06\/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 there from 4.35 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. on 29\/05\/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, 06\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n28581\/21<\/p>\n

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

Syldys Aleksandrovich KHOMUSHKU<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

22\/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 5.30 p.m. to 11.50 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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 22\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n31621\/21<\/p>\n

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

Yaroslav Ruslanovich MAYKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nMoscow City 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 11.45 a.m. to 9.30 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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 18\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n31684\/21<\/p>\n

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

Nikolay Sergeyevich AGAPOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

23\/01\/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 8.25 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 to 2.40 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 \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 20\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n32175\/21<\/p>\n

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

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

1999<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of 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

13\/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 3.50 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 4.15 a.m. on 01\/02\/2021; the applicant spent more than 4\u00a0hours 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 \u2013 final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 13\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n32607\/21<\/p>\n

29\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Yelena Sergeyvna BEREZHNAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Environmental rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

16\/08\/2020<\/td>\n

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

30\/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 6.25 p.m. to 9.25 p.m. on 16\/08\/2020;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 30\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n32652\/21<\/p>\n

29\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1997<\/td>\n

Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Environmental rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

16\/08\/2020<\/td>\n

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

04\/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; from 6.25\u00a0p.m. to 9.05 p.m. on 16\/08\/2020,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 04\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n32654\/21<\/p>\n

29\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Aliya Makhmutovna GIZETDINOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Environmental rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

16\/08\/2020<\/td>\n

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

04\/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 6.25 p.m. to 9.25 p.m. on 16\/08\/2020;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 04\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n52100\/21<\/p>\n

12\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Boris Leonidovich KROTOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1971<\/td>\n

Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/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 11.40\u00a0a.m. on 02\/02\/2021 to 03\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision: Moscow City Court, 12\/04\/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