{"id":21703,"date":"2023-11-23T09:57:38","date_gmt":"2023-11-23T09:57:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21703"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:57:54","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T09:57:54","slug":"case-of-mazanov-and-others-v-russia-2954-18-and-24-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21703","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF MAZANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 2954\/18 and 24 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights
\nFIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF MAZANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 2954\/18 and 24 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n23 November 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nMar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, President,
\nMattias Guyomar,
\nKate\u0159ina \u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 Government\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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some applicants 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 5 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) during the periods indicated in the appended table. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. The Court reiterates that that the expressions \u201clawful\u201d and \u201cin accordance with a procedure prescribed by law\u201d in Article 5 \u00a7 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 \u00a7 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, \u00a7\u00a7 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).<\/p>\n

9. The Court has previously examined complaints brought by persons arrested and detained in similar circumstances in Russia. In the cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077\/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, 13\u00a0February 2018, Korneyeva v. Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, 8 October 2019, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10 April 2018, and Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598\/08, 28\u00a0November 2017, the Court has already found a violation in respect of the 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 on 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 applicants\u2019 detention, as described in the appended table, was contrary to domestic law requirements and the \u201clawfulness\u201d guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).<\/p>\n

11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 1 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, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill\u2011founded 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0101\u201111, 27\u00a0November 2012, concerning excessive length of pre-trial detention, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501\/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measure taken against participants in solo manifestations, Frumkin v. Russia, no.\u00a074568\/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0178-91, concerning lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal and immediate execution of a sentence of administrative detention; Korneyeva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a044-65, concerning right not to be tried or punished twice; and Yartsev v.\u00a0Russia, no. 16683\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a022-38, 20 July 2021, concerning restrictions on the right to freedom of expression).<\/p>\n

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

13. Some applicants raised additional complaints under Articles 5, 6 and\u00a010 of the Convention. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants\u2019 complaints.<\/p>\n

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253\/04 and 2 others, \u00a7 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers 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 concerning the unlawfulness of the applicants\u2019 arrest and detention during the periods indicated in the appended table and the other complaints under the well-established law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and decides that it is not necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants\u2019 complaints;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) (see the appended table);<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 23 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mar\u00eda El\u00f3segui
\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 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))<\/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>\nStart date of unauthorised detention<\/strong><\/td>\nEnd date of unauthorised detention<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecific defects<\/strong><\/td>\nOther complaints under well-established case-law<\/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>\n2954\/18<\/p>\n

11\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Sergeyevich MAZANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017, 2.30 p.m.<\/td>\n13\/06\/2017, 4.30 p.m.<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8\u00a0October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 decisions by the St Petersburg City Court, on 20\/06\/2017 (7 days\u2019 administrative arrest) and on 11\/07\/2017 (fine of RUB\u00a010,000),<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – convicted twice for participation in one public event in St\u00a0Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (see above)<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n3031\/18<\/p>\n

20\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Pavel Valeryevich CHUGUNOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017, 4.10 p.m.<\/td>\n14\/06\/2017<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8\u00a0October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions were taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 23\/06\/2017 (15 days\u2019 administrative detention) and on 08\/08\/2017 (fine of RUB 10,000),<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – convicted twice for participation in one public event in St\u00a0Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (see above)<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n3078\/18<\/p>\n

08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Anna Vladimirovna TROITSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017<\/td>\n14\/06\/2017<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8\u00a0October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 decisions by the St Petersburg City Court, on 21\/06\/2017, fine of RUB\u00a010,000 and 4 days\u2019 administrative arrest ordered by the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 14\/06\/2017,<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – convicted twice for participation in one public event in St\u00a0Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (see above)<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n3166\/18<\/p>\n

18\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Yegor Vladislavovich ARISTOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017, 2.10 p.m.<\/td>\n13\/06\/2017, unspecified time<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8\u00a0October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the two sets of the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions were taken by the St\u00a0Petersburg City Court on 20\/06\/2017 (7 days\u2019 administrative arrest) and on 18\/07\/2017 (fine of RUB\u00a010,000);<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – convicted twice for participation in one public event in St\u00a0Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (see above)<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n3179\/18<\/p>\n

21\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Ivanovich LEBEDEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017, 2\u00a0p.m.<\/td>\n13\/06\/2017, unspecified time<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8\u00a0October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision was taken by the St\u00a0Petersburg City Court on 24\/04\/2018 (fine of RUB\u00a010,000);<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was charged and convicted for participation in one public event in St\u00a0Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO and sentenced to fines of RUB\u00a0500 and 10,000, respectively<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n3266\/18<\/p>\n

23\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Yevgeniya Alekseyevna CHIVILEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n27\/02\/2022, 5.15 p.m.<\/p>\n

12\/06\/2017, 4.10 p.m.<\/td>\n

28\/02\/2022, 3.30 p.m.<\/p>\n

13\/06\/2017, unspecified time<\/td>\n

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect on two occasions: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art.\u00a027.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – conviction under Article 20.2.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO for participation on 27\/02\/2022 in public gathering in St\u00a0Petersburg \/ administrative detention of 9 days\/ final – St Petersburg City Court on 02\/03\/2022,<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was charged and convicted for participation in one public event in St\u00a0Petersburg, Marsovo pole, under Articles\u00a019.3 \u00a7 1 and 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO and sentenced to fines of RUB\u00a01,000 and 10,000 respectively; relevant final decisions were taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 20\/07\/2017 (Art.19.3(1)) and 25\/07\/2017 (Art.20.2(5)),<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – absence of the prosecuting party in the first-instance court in all sets of the proceedings,<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 28\/02\/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO \u2013 final decision: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court on 02\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n3490\/18<\/p>\n

18\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Yuryevich GEDZ<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017<\/td>\n13\/06\/2017<\/td>\nDetention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8\u00a0October 2019),<\/p>\n

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019)<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings –<\/p>\n

Decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 20\/06\/2017 (7 days\u2019 administrative arrest);<\/p>\n

Decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 18\/07\/2017 (fine of RUB 10,000),<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12\/06\/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO, article\u00a020.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO \u2013 St\u00a0Petersburg City Court on 20\/06\/2017, St Petersburg City Court on 18\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n3601\/18<\/p>\n

18\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Denis STADNICHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017<\/td>\n14\/06\/2017<\/td>\nDetention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8\u00a0October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art.\u00a027.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121\u201122, 10 April 2018), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings –<\/p>\n

Decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 04\/07\/2017 (fine of RUB 15,000)<\/p>\n

and by the St Petersburg City Court on 19\/06\/2017 (15\u00a0days\u2019 administrative arrest),<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12\/06\/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: convictions under article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO and article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO by the St Petersburg City Court on 19\/06\/2017 and by the St Petersburg City Court on 04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n3630\/18<\/p>\n

18\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Svyatoslav Mikhaylovich CHUMAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017<\/td>\n14\/06\/2017<\/td>\nDetention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8\u00a0October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art.\u00a027.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121\u201122, 10 April 2018),<\/p>\n

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019)<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings –<\/p>\n

Decisions by the St Petersburg City Court on 19\/06\/2017 (1-day administrative arrest);<\/p>\n

and by the St Petersburg City Court on 06\/07\/2017 (fine of RUB 10,000),<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12\/06\/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: convictions under article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO and article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO – St Petersburg City Court on 19\/06\/2017, and St Petersburg City Court on 06\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n2976\/22<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Revaz SHMERTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

08\/06\/2021, 8.05 a.m. (arrest record indicates allegedly incorrect time of arrest – 08.55 p.m.)<\/td>\n08\/06\/2021,<\/p>\n

9 p.m.<\/td>\n

Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 7077\/06 and 12\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a076-79, 26 June 2018)<\/td>\nArt. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – 08\/06\/2021 \u2013 pending as of 16\/09\/2022 on the charges of fraud. Courts: Tverskoy District Court; Moscow City Court; Specific defects: fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n3961\/22<\/p>\n

03\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksey Vladimirovich VOLKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

21\/04\/2021<\/td>\n21\/04\/2021<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), complaint raised on appeal<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 27\/08\/2021, 5 days\u2019 administrative arrest,<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – immediate enforcement of the administrative arrest ordered by the first-instance court given absence of the suspensive effect of the appeal proceedings in the Russian law<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n5476\/22<\/p>\n

12\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Zhanna Rafinovna INKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n18\/08\/2021<\/td>\n23\/08\/2021<\/td>\nDelay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a067, 13 February 2018)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n7042\/22<\/p>\n

11\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Fedor Aleksandrovich GUBERT<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Balysheva Irina Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Cherepanovo<\/td>\n

03\/04\/2021, 6.35 p.m.<\/td>\n04\/04\/2021, 3.45 a.m.<\/p>\n

(the applicant raised this complaint before the Novosibirsk Regional Court, appeal decision of 13\/10\/2012)<\/td>\n

Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 7077\/06 and 12\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a076-79, 26 June 2018)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n7244\/22<\/p>\n

16\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

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

2001<\/td>\n

Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

07\/07\/2021, 3.01 a.m.<\/td>\n09\/07\/2021, 12.30 p.m.<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art.\u00a029.6(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10 April 2018)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – 16\/07\/2021, Moscow City Court, administrative detention of 15 days<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n10582\/22<\/p>\n

16\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Viktoriya Markovna IVLEVA-YORK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1956<\/p>\n

Yuriy Vadimovich SAMODUROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1951<\/td>\n

Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

20\/11\/2021, 1.10 p.m.<\/td>\n22\/11\/2021, 6.30 p.m.<\/td>\nApplicants taken to the police station as administrative suspects: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the 48-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(3)-(4) and Art.\u00a029.6(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10 April 2018)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n14482\/22<\/p>\n

15\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Rinat Karamatovich SHARIPOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1951<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n05\/02\/2019,<\/p>\n

6 p.m.<\/td>\n

07\/02\/2019,<\/p>\n

11 a.m.<\/p>\n

The applicant\u2019s administrative conviction of unruly behaviour was quashed on appeal on 25\/03\/2019 by the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic. He sued the State authorities for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful detention and was awarded 30,000 Russian roubles (final decision by the Supreme Court of Russia on<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2021) (approximately EUR\u00a0375).<\/td>\n

Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8\u00a0October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art.\u00a027.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121\u201122, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.\u00a05865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13\u00a0February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10 April 2018)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n18110\/22<\/p>\n

15\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Kristina Igorevna TIMAKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

22\/10\/2018<\/td>\n22\/10\/2018 (The applicant complained about her unlawful detention before the domestic courts: final domestic decision by the Supreme Court of Russia on 17\/09\/2021).<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7\u00a01 CAO (see Butkevich v.\u00a0Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13\u00a0February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121-22, 10 April 2018); Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art.\u00a027.2 \u00a7 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598\/08, \u00a7 21, 28 November 2017) ,<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n20907\/22<\/p>\n

11\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Kseniya Dmitriyevna KLIMOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

19\/09\/2021<\/td>\n19\/09\/2021<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – fine of RUB\u00a05,000, final decision on 15\/10\/2021 by the Kirov Regional Court<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n22543\/22<\/p>\n

23\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Yelena Yevgenyevna LOBOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1967<\/td>\n

Olgerdt Oksana Gennadyevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

03\/02\/2021, 12.10 a.m.<\/td>\n04\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

7 p.m.<\/p>\n

(The applicant raised a complaint of the unlawful detention in the administrative-offence proceedings. The applicant was convicted under 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 CAO and was fined 15,000 Russian roubles. Final decision on 23\/09\/2021 by the Moscow City Court<\/td>\n

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10 April 2018)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n40946\/22<\/p>\n

04\/08\/2022<\/td>\n

Anastasiya Pavlovna MASHCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Gak Irina Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Rostov-on-Don<\/td>\n

28\/02\/2022, 8\u00a0p.m.<\/td>\n01\/03\/2022, 10.40 p.m.<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 05\/04\/2022, sentenced to 7 days\u2019 administrative arrest,<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court<\/td>\n

3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n50932\/22<\/p>\n

09\/10\/2022<\/td>\n

Kristina Andreyevna SHIBALOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n24\/02\/2022, 8.09 p.m.<\/td>\n25\/02\/2022, 2.35 a.m.<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no.\u00a047598\/08, \u00a7 21, 28\u00a0November 2017)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09\/06\/2022, fine of RUB\u00a020,000,<\/p>\n

Art. 11 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly – manifestation against the war in Ukraine, Moscow, Tverskaya, 24\/02\/2022, Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n55441\/22<\/p>\n

22\/10\/2022<\/td>\n

Irina Zimilovna VLADIMIRSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

01\/03\/2022,<\/p>\n

9 p.m.<\/td>\n

02\/03\/2022, 3.45 a.m.<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10 April 2018)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 23\/06\/2022, fine of RUB\u00a020,000,<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – on 01\/03\/2022 the applicant held a solo picket and was arrested. She had a sign with the inscription “No war”. On 16\/03\/2022 the applicant was convicted of the administrative offence under Art. 20.5 \u00a7 5 of CAO, upheld by the final decision of the Moscow City Court on 23\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n55971\/22<\/p>\n

12\/11\/2022<\/td>\n

Nikolay Vladimirovich UTEMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/td>\n

25\/04\/2022, 10.50 p.m.<\/td>\n26\/04\/2022, 1.35 a.m.<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 12\/07\/2022, fine of RUB 30,000<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n57029\/22<\/p>\n

17\/11\/2022<\/td>\n

Tatyana Konstantinovna BAYKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Filatchev Oleg Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

06\/03\/2022<\/td>\n06\/03\/2022<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings \u2013 final decision on 19\/07\/2022, by the Moscow City Court, sentence of the fine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n4797\/23<\/p>\n

10\/01\/2023<\/td>\n

Anton Borisovich BOCHANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Velikiy Novgorod<\/td>\n

11\/09\/2022, 6.14 p.m.<\/td>\n11\/09\/2022, 8.14 p.m.<\/td>\nApplicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 \u00a7 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect\u2019s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8\u00a0October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2 July 2019)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

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