{"id":21906,"date":"2023-12-14T10:02:48","date_gmt":"2023-12-14T10:02:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21906"},"modified":"2023-12-14T10:02:48","modified_gmt":"2023-12-14T10:02:48","slug":"case-of-khorrshr-and-others-v-russia-34241-16-and-15-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21906","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF KHORRSHR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 34241\/16 and 15 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty).<\/p>\n

\n

European Court of Human Rights
\nTHIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF KHORRSHR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 34241\/16 and 15 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n14 December 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Peeter Roosma, President,
\nIoannis Ktistakis,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 23 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 or Protocols to it.<\/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 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. The Court reiterates 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\u00a0fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).<\/p>\n

9. In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077\/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a091\u201196, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7 67, 13\u00a0February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110\/03, \u00a7 81, 3\u00a0March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and\u00a05\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10 April 2018, 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 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 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

11. 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

12. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints are also admissible and disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Karelin v. Russia, no. 926\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 58-85, 20\u00a0September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO); Martynyuk\u00a0v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a013764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7 21-30 and 38-42, 8\u00a0October 2019, as to fairness of those proceedings and the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention; Novikova\u00a0and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501\/07 and 4 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0125-31 and\u00a0189-212, 26\u00a0April 2016, Butkevich v. Russia, no.\u00a05865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a063-65, 13\u00a0February 2018, RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561\/11, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0101-13, 11 May 2021 and Bodalev v. Russia, no.\u00a067200\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 101-03, 6\u00a0September 2022, as to various interferences with the right to freedom of expression and the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for those interferences; Bodalev, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 75-95, Frumkin v. Russia, no.\u00a074568\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 100-42, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a076204\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 53-75, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and\u00a0Others v. Russia, no. 21613\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 84-97, 3 October 2013, as to disproportionate measures taken against organisers or participants of public assemblies.<\/p>\n

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

13. Lastly, some applicants raised further complaints under the Convention or Protocols to it. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 12 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.<\/p>\n

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

14. 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) 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;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);<\/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 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 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 14 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 \u00a0 Peeter Roosma
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

_____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 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
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\u2011established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)<\/strong><\/p>\n

[i]<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n34241\/16<\/p>\n

02\/06\/2016<\/td>\n

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

1985<\/td>\n

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Mytishchi<\/td>\n

23\/11\/2015<\/td>\n24\/11\/2015<\/td>\nDetention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.\u00a0Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22, 10 April 2018). 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 October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 19.3 of CAO (final decision on 03\/12\/2015 by Moscow City Court)<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n41846\/17<\/p>\n

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

Andrew Aleksandrovich WINGORODOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Rotaru Vitalie<\/p>\n

Chisinau<\/td>\n

14\/12\/2016<\/td>\n14\/12\/2016<\/td>\nDetention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.\u00a0Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121-22, 10 April 2018) , 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 October 2019)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n46358\/17<\/p>\n

22\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Vadim Pavlovich OZHOGIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

27\/11\/2016<\/td>\n29\/11\/2016<\/p>\n

Final judgment in the administrative offence proceedings was issued by the Moscow City Court on 22 December 2016; the applicant was sentenced to an administrative fine of RUB 1,000.<\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121-22, 10 April 2018) , 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 October 2019)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n46442\/17<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Andrey Aleksandrovich MASHARO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1973<\/td>\n

Uradovskikh Irina Leonidovna<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

24\/08\/2016<\/td>\n26\/08\/2016<\/p>\n

Final decision of the St Petersburg City Court on 26\/01\/2017 dismissing the applicant\u2019s complaint about the unlawful detention<\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121-22, 10 April 2018) , 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 October 2019)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n53795\/17<\/p>\n

17\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Artem Valeryevich PARFENOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

23\/03\/2017<\/td>\n24\/03\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121-22, 10 April 2018), 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 October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 20.1 of CAO (final decision on 12\/04\/2017 by Krasnodar Regional Court),<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – immediate execution of the sentence of detention in the above proceedings; an appeal against the conviction had no suspensive effect.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n61387\/17<\/p>\n

11\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Pavel Pavlovich ZOREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Zhlobitskiy Aleksandr Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Severodvinsk<\/td>\n

10\/02\/2017<\/td>\n11\/02\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121-22, 10 April 2018) , 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 October 2019)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n61668\/17<\/p>\n

11\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Eduard Viktorovich SHITIK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

29\/04\/2017<\/td>\n29\/04\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three\u2011hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, 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 under Art.20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (final decision on 13\/06\/2017 by the St Petersburg City Court)<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n61733\/17<\/p>\n

11\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Shakhnaz Davudovna SHITIK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1964<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

29\/04\/2017<\/td>\n29\/04\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three\u2011hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, 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 under Art.20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (final decision on 13\/06\/2017 by St\u00a0Petersburg City Court)<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n70805\/17<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Artur Igorevich GIMAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

11\/06\/2017<\/td>\n12\/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.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8 October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 20.3 of CAO (final decision on 15\/06\/2017 by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic),<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – during a football match the applicant swayed a banner saying \u201cZarya Kazan: Human will powers victory\u201d and showing symbols resembling swastika (allegedly, it was an ancient Slavic solar symbol, \u201cKolovrat\u201d); he was arrested and sentenced to 8-day detention in the above proceedings,<\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – immediate execution of the sentence of detention; an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect.<\/td>\n

5,000,<\/p>\n

to be paid to the applicant,<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

850,<\/p>\n

to be paid directly to the applicant\u2019s lawyer, I.\u00a0Sholokhov<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

10.<\/td>\n72058\/17<\/p>\n

21\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Andrey Aleksandrovich KALIKH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

Golubok Sergey Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017<\/td>\n13\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos. 50271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121-22, 10 April 2018) , 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 October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (final decision on 04\/07\/2017 by St\u00a0Petersburg City Court),<\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression \u2013 the applicant was arrested at a protest rally on 12\/06\/2017 and given, in the above proceedings, a fine of RUB 10,000 for participation in that rally; the courts summarily dismissed his argument that he had been at the rally venue as an \u201cobserver\u201d (for Index on Censorship, a non-governmental organisation campaigning for freedom of expression) for monitoring, making record of and publishing on police abuse against mass-media representatives during rallies.<\/td>\n

4,000, to be paid to the applicant,<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

850,<\/p>\n

to be paid directly to A.\u00a0Peredruk and S.\u00a0Golubok, jointly, in compensation for legal services<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

11.<\/td>\n12150\/18<\/p>\n

02\/03\/2018<\/td>\n

Nadezhda Viktorovna KOTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1955<\/td>\n

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

08\/07\/2017<\/td>\n08\/07\/2018<\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – the applicant and other volunteers for A.\u00a0Navalnyy\u2019s presidential campaign distributed, separately from each other, leaflets at different locations in Moscow on 08\/07\/2017; he was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 15,000 under Art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (final decision on 04\/09\/2017 by the Moscow City Court); the courts considered that the applicant had participated, together with them, in a single “rally”, which had not been notified to the municipal authority as required under the Public Events Act.<\/td>\n4,000, to be paid to the applicant,<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

850, to be paid directly to the applicant\u2019s lawyer, K.\u00a0Terekhov<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

12.<\/td>\n24517\/18<\/p>\n

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

Valentin Gennadyevich MURZAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

08\/10\/2017<\/td>\n10\/10\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence\/assessment of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d under Art. 27.3 \u00a7 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0121-22, 10 April 2018) , 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 October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in two sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Art.\u00a020.2 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 5 of CAO (final decisions on 10\/11\/2017 and 27\/12\/2017 by Perm Regional Court),<\/p>\n

Art. 11 (2) – disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – the applicant was arrested and sentenced, in the above proceedings, to fines of RUB 25,000 and RUB 15,000 for participation, on 07\/10\/2017, in a rally to support A. Navalnyy and then in a spontaneous gathering to support arrested protesters.<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n26290\/18<\/p>\n

23\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

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

1993<\/td>\n

Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Velikiy Novgorod<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017<\/td>\n12\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three\u2011hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, 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 under Art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (final decision on 26\/02\/2018 by the Moscow City Court)<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n34702\/18<\/p>\n

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

Andrey Olegovich SOLOVYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017<\/td>\n12\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (final decision on 12\/01\/2018 by the Moscow City Court).<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n37026\/18<\/p>\n

25\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Mikhail Aleksandrovich YUDIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

12\/06\/2017<\/td>\n12\/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.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a050271\/06 and 8 other applications, \u00a7\u00a035, 2\u00a0July 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO (final decision on 26\/01\/2018 by the Moscow City Court).<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n14318\/19<\/p>\n

02\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

Sergey Alekseyevich KIRSANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1955<\/td>\n

Kholodtsova Inna Vadimovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

02\/09\/2018<\/td>\n03\/09\/2018<\/td>\nDetention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a072051\/17, \u00a7 35, 8 October 2019)<\/td>\nArt. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 19.3 of CAO (final decision on 06\/09\/2018 by the Moscow City Court)<\/td>\n4,000<\/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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). European Court of Human Rights THIRD SECTION CASE OF KHORRSHR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 34241\/16 and 15 others \u2013 see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 December 2023 This…<\/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-21906","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\/21906","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=21906"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21906\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21907,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21906\/revisions\/21907"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}