{"id":21839,"date":"2023-12-07T11:32:33","date_gmt":"2023-12-07T11:32:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21839"},"modified":"2023-12-07T11:32:33","modified_gmt":"2023-12-07T11:32:33","slug":"case-of-tarasenko-and-others-v-russia-51391-21-and-30-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21839","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF TARASENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 51391\/21 and 30 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies.<\/p>\n

\n

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF TARASENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 51391\/21 and 30 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 December 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, President,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc,
\nDavor Deren\u010dinovi\u0107, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 16 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\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 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.\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); and Martynyuk v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a013764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 38-42, 8\u00a0October 2019, relating 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 complaints under Article 6 of the Convention alleging various aspects of unfairness of the administrative\u2011offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraph 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.<\/p>\n

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

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a025809\/17 and 14 others, \u00a7\u00a022, 4\u00a0October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants\u2019 complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these complaints disclose 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\u2011law 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 7 December 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 \u00a0Lorraine Schembri Orland
\nActing Deputy Registrar \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\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\u2011pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros) [i]<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

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

1.<\/td>\n51391\/21<\/p>\n

22\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Ivan Nikolayevich TARASENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\ndetention of 7 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

02\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.40 p.m. on 02\/02\/2021 until 2.00 p.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;<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n51907\/21<\/p>\n

30\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Zakhar Dmitriyevich ALEKSEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Vladislav Vladimirovich Kosnyrev<\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.30 p.m. until 6.30 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.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n51910\/21<\/p>\n

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

Ivan Albertovich OVECHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\ndetention of 8 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

24\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.45\u00a0p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 until 6.00 p.m. on 01\/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<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n51911\/21<\/p>\n

30\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Vitaliy Yevgenyevich PASTERYUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Vladislav Vladimirovich Kosnyrev<\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 5,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Komi Republic<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 31\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n51953\/21<\/p>\n

28\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Maksim Olegovich SPICHAK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 23\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n51972\/21<\/p>\n

28\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksey Gennadiyevich CHELMAKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\ndetention of 5 days<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.00\u00a0p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 until 4.00 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;<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n51976\/21<\/p>\n

28\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1992<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 23\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n51981\/21<\/p>\n

28\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Karen Sergeyevich LOBYAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 23\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n51996\/21<\/p>\n

13\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Petr Alekseyevich GOLIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

14\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.20\u00a0p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 until 1.11 a.m. on 01\/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<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n52234\/21<\/p>\n

30\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1987<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Sochi<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nKrasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.00\u00a0p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 until 6.30 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.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n52266\/21<\/p>\n

11\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Valentina Nikolayevna PETROVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1971<\/td>\n

Tatyana Georgiyevna Martynova<\/p>\n

Pskov<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Pskov<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nPskov Regional Court<\/p>\n

12\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 31\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n52272\/21<\/p>\n

07\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Klim Sergeyevich MURATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Olimpiada Valentinovna Usanova<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

20\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 31\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n52278\/21<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Gelnara Rafikovna SAKHABIYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1971<\/td>\n

Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

14\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n52284\/21<\/p>\n

11\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Ivan Dmitriyevich DOROZHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Tatyana Georgiyevna Martynova<\/p>\n

Pskov<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Pskov<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\nPskov Regional Court<\/p>\n

12\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 31\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n52319\/21<\/p>\n

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

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

1975<\/td>\n

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

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally against tree felling<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.30\u00a0p.m. on 27\/12\/2020 until 2.30 a.m. on 29\/12\/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<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n52353\/21<\/p>\n

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

Khristina Dzhonson RAMIRES<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Aleksey Viktorovich Tsvetkov<\/p>\n

Vladimir<\/td>\n

Rally to ensure access of doctors to Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Navalnyy in detention<\/p>\n

Pokrov<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2.2 \u00a7\u00a03 of CAO<\/td>\ndetention of 10 days<\/td>\nVladimir Regional Court<\/p>\n

14\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 07\/04\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\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

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n52388\/21<\/p>\n

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

Olga Ivanovna SHASHKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1959<\/td>\n

Aleksey Viktorovich Tsvetkov<\/p>\n

Vladimir<\/td>\n

Rally to ensure access of doctors to Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Navalnyy in detention<\/p>\n

Pokrov<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2.2 \u00a7\u00a03 of CAO<\/td>\n20 hours of community work<\/td>\nVladimir Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n52474\/21<\/p>\n

30\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Andrey Markovich SOROCHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1962<\/td>\n

Olimpiada Valentinovna Usanova<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 30,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.15 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 until 7 p.m. on 01\/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.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n52517\/21<\/p>\n

09\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Erikovich IONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

25\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 02\/02\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n52557\/21<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Ilnur Rafisovich FATKHULLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

2002<\/td>\n

Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

28\/04\/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<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n52561\/21<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Ayrat Rustemovich KHALILULLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 11,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n52563\/21<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Ramil Rustamovich KHAYRUTDINOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n52568\/21<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Dinar Miyassarovich YUNUSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n52573\/21<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Pavel Vitalyevich YELKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n52580\/21<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Anna Vitalyevna MINIKAYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n52586\/21<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Kamilya Danilovna ZIATDINOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n52594\/21<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Timur Kakhramanovich ABDURAKHMANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n54453\/21<\/p>\n

14\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Yegor Igorevich PETROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Aleksey Sergeyevich Lapuzin<\/p>\n

Samara<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Samara<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 8 of CAO<\/td>\ndetention of 28 days<\/td>\nSamara Regional Court<\/p>\n

28\/04\/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;<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 21\/04\/2021 for compiling an offence report<\/td>\n

6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n54464\/21<\/p>\n

15\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Olegovich BORISOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Olimpiada Valentinovna Usanova<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 12.20 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 until 2.40 p.m. on 01\/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.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n54476\/21<\/p>\n

22\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Timur Agilyevich MAMEDOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Aleksey Alekseyevich Vasilyev<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

22\/04\/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<\/p>\n

.<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n54532\/21<\/p>\n

14\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Nikolay Valeryevich SEROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Olimpiada Valentinovna Usanova<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 31\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence report;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. SECOND SECTION CASE OF TARASENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 51391\/21 and 30 others \u2013 see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 December…<\/p>\n

Read more →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21839"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21839\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21840,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21839\/revisions\/21840"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}