{"id":21920,"date":"2023-12-14T10:38:37","date_gmt":"2023-12-14T10:38:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21920"},"modified":"2023-12-14T10:38:37","modified_gmt":"2023-12-14T10:38:37","slug":"case-of-stalin-and-others-v-russia-2825-21-and-31-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21920","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF STALIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 2825\/21 and 31 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

European Court of Human Rights
\nTHIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF STALIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 2825\/21 and 31 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 Stalin 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\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

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

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevi\u010dius and Others v.\u00a0Lithuania [GC], no.\u00a037553\/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a074552\/01, ECHR\u00a02006\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\u00a063-67, 13\u00a0February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and\u00a05\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 (CAO); and Martynyuk v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a013764\/15, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a038-42, 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 additional complaints under the Convention or Protocols to it. In view of the findings in paragraphs\u00a011 and 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;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these applications 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-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n

6. Holds<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 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\u00a0\u00a0\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\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\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.<\/td>\n2825\/21<\/p>\n

05\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Damir Islamovich STALIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Political rally<\/p>\n

Samara,<\/p>\n

21\/06\/2020<\/p>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Samara,<\/p>\n

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

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

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

5 days of detention<\/p>\n

(quashed on appeal)<\/p>\n

15 hours of community work<\/td>\n

Samara Regional Court<\/p>\n

30\/06\/2020<\/p>\n

Samara Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – (i) delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (after the appeal decision of 30\/06\/2020 by Samara Regional Court, quashing his sentence to 5-day detention, he was released on 01\/07\/2020); (ii) on 05\/02\/2021 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report in relation to the rally on 23\/01\/2021,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings in 2021,<\/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 detention in 2020.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n20302\/21<\/p>\n

14\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Denis Vasilyevich GRUBENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

Rally to support S. Furgal<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk,<\/p>\n

01\/08\/2020<\/p>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk,<\/p>\n

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

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

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

fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

3 days of detention<\/td>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

24\/09\/2020<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

17\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 21\/04\/2021 and 23-24\/04\/2021 escorting to and detention in a police station 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 both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings,<\/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 detention.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n21107\/21<\/p>\n

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

Vladimir Ivanovich CHERNYSHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/td>\n

Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich<\/p>\n

Belgorod<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Belgorod,<\/p>\n

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

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

22\/03\/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
4.<\/td>\n29390\/21<\/p>\n

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

Vitaliy Mikhaylovich GUREYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2002<\/td>\n

Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna<\/p>\n

Kolomna<\/td>\n

Rally to support A.\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n12 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021 – 01\/02\/2021 detention in a police station after 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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n29391\/21<\/p>\n

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

Nikita Aleksandrovich BUDKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna<\/p>\n

Kolomna<\/td>\n

Rally to support A.\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n10 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

22\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 30\/01\/2021- 01\/02\/2021 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report in relation to the rally on 23\/01\/2021,<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n29604\/21<\/p>\n

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

Anna Arkadyevna KHORT<\/strong><\/p>\n

2002<\/td>\n

Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna<\/p>\n

Kolomna<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n15 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

09\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021 escorting to and detention in a police station 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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n31685\/21<\/p>\n

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

Anna Gennadyevna SHCHEBET<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Bryansk,<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021 escorting to a police station 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>\n33900\/21<\/p>\n

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

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

1986<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Cheboksary,<\/p>\n

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

Anticorruption rally<\/p>\n

Cheboksary,<\/p>\n

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

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

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

fine of RUB 10,000<\/p>\n

5 days of detention<\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic<\/p>\n

19\/02\/2021<\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 30\/01\/2021 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report in relation to the rally on 23\/01\/2021,<\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n34698\/21<\/p>\n

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

Mariya Aleksandrovna YURCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Rally against amendments to the Constitution<\/p>\n

St Petersburg,<\/p>\n

15\/03\/2020<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSt Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

22\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 15\/03\/2020 escorting to a police station 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
10.<\/td>\n34898\/21<\/p>\n

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

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

1980<\/td>\n

Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna<\/p>\n

Kolomna<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n14 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

12\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021-01\/02\/2021 detention in a police station after 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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n35155\/21<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Alekseyevich SMIRNOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

17\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

02\/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
12.<\/td>\n35158\/21<\/p>\n

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

Artem Nikolayevich LAPIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

11\/05\/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
13.<\/td>\n35189\/21<\/p>\n

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

Andrey Vladimirovich BORTNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n8 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

08\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021-01\/02\/2021 detention in a police station after 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 – lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of detention.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n35191\/21<\/p>\n

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

Aleksandra Aleksandrovna KLYUKA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

20\/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
15.<\/td>\n35192\/21<\/p>\n

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

Artem Sergeyevich MARTIROSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

30\/03\/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
16.<\/td>\n36361\/21<\/p>\n

30\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Andrey Viktorovich DRUZHININ<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

26\/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
17.<\/td>\n36372\/21<\/p>\n

30\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Tatyana Andreyevna MASLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Tyumen,<\/p>\n

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

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

15\/03\/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>\n36390\/21<\/p>\n

30\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Nikolay Igorevich IVANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

14\/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
19.<\/td>\n36732\/21<\/p>\n

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

Rostislav Vladimirovich NEKENOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/td>\n

Protest action<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

07\/11\/2020<\/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. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 07\/11\/2020 escorting to a police station 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>\n36767\/21<\/p>\n

13\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Yekarerina Aleksandrovna PONOMAREVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Velikiy Novgorod<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Novgorod,<\/p>\n

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

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

25\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 23\/01\/2021 escorting to a police station 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
21.<\/td>\n36884\/21<\/p>\n

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

Mikhail Mikhaylovich DEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n15 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

11\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 03\/02\/2021 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after 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 – lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of detention.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n36929\/21<\/p>\n

16\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Fedor Gennadyevich PARSHIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2002<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n8 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021-01\/02\/2021 detention in a police station after the compiling of the 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 – lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of detention.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n37333\/21<\/p>\n

08\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Gennadyevich KALKAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna<\/p>\n

Kolomna<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n10 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

22\/03\/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>\n5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n37815\/21<\/p>\n

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

Andrey Viktorovich NAZAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n15 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n38199\/21<\/p>\n

13\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Maksim Vladimirovich YEVSIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Zatonskaya Yuliya Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Lipetsk<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Lipetsk,<\/p>\n

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

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

25\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 23\/01\/2021 escorting to a police station 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
26.<\/td>\n38403\/21<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Sergeyevich VOLKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. 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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021 escorting to a police station 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
27.<\/td>\n38547\/21<\/p>\n

24\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Vladimir Sergeyevich NEMANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Petrova Polina Artemovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\n10 days of detention<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021-01\/02\/2021 detention in a police station after 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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n38986\/21<\/p>\n

22\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Oleg Valeryevich IVANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Stavropol,<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021 escorting to a police station 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
29.<\/td>\n39153\/21<\/p>\n

19\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Petrovich SEROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. 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

12\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report.<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n39215\/21<\/p>\n

28\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Guzel Salavatovna VASIKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. 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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 31\/01\/2021-01\/02\/2021 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report.<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n39345\/21<\/p>\n

22\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Igor Svyatoslavovich SHAPOVALOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Moscow,<\/p>\n

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

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

19\/05\/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
32.<\/td>\n46922\/21<\/p>\n

30\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Nikolayevich ZHELTUKHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Bannikov Ruslan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Voronezh<\/td>\n

Rally to support A. Navalnyy<\/p>\n

Voronezh,<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\n7 days of detention<\/td>\nVoronezh Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – on 23\/01\/2021 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after 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 proceeding.<\/td>\n

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

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