{"id":21924,"date":"2023-12-14T10:46:01","date_gmt":"2023-12-14T10:46:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21924"},"modified":"2023-12-14T10:46:01","modified_gmt":"2023-12-14T10:46:01","slug":"case-of-doronin-and-others-v-russia-44105-21-and-29-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21924","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF DORONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 44105\/21 and 29 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 DORONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 44105\/21 and 29 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 Doronin 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\u00a063-65, 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 additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative\u2011offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.<\/p>\n

15. The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

16. 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, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/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\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 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 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 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
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)<\/strong>[i]<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n44105\/21<\/p>\n

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

Vladimir Dmitriyevich DORONIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

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

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

04\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station on 31\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence record between 1.30 p.m. and 9.00 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
2.<\/td>\n44369\/21<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Olegovich TIKHONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 15,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic<\/p>\n

26\/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
3.<\/td>\n44373\/21<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Artem Aleksandrovich MAKAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic<\/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
4.<\/td>\n44380\/21<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Ivan Igorevich KUZNETSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 12,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic<\/p>\n

15\/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
5.<\/td>\n44383\/21<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksey Dmitriyevich MAKSIMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

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

23\/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
6.<\/td>\n44425\/21<\/p>\n

17\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1988<\/td>\n

Solovyev Stanislav Vyacheslavovich<\/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 20,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

18\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) \u2013 unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence record between 4.10 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 and 02\/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
7.<\/td>\n44668\/21<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Andreyevich KUDRYASHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

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

04\/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
8.<\/td>\n44693\/21<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Arkadiy Nikolayevich MITROSHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

2021<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 12,000<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic<\/p>\n

06\/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
9.<\/td>\n44699\/21<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Pavel Vadimovich PETROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

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

06\/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
10.<\/td>\n44706\/21<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Anzhelika Nikolayevna ROMANOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/p>\n

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

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

31\/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
11.<\/td>\n44967\/21<\/p>\n

18\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Svetlana Mikhaylovna KRIVITSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Eco-protest<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

27\/09\/2020<\/td>\n

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

18\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n45001\/21<\/p>\n

20\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Darya Dmitriyevna VIKULOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Krasikov Vladimir Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Samara<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Samara<\/p>\n

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

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

18\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 31\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence record;<\/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>\n45022\/21<\/p>\n

03\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Pavel Sergeyevich LEVITSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Kurgan<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\n20 hours of community work<\/td>\nKurgan Regional Court<\/p>\n

17\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station on 23\/01\/2021 for compiling an offence record;<\/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
14.<\/td>\n45056\/21<\/p>\n

25\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

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

2000<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Novosibirsk<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\ndetention for 8 days<\/td>\nNovosibirsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

25\/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 – Right of appeal against criminal conviction\/sentence – 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
15.<\/td>\n45255\/21<\/p>\n

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

Inna Vyacheslavovna TITOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

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

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

13\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record 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
16.<\/td>\n45264\/21<\/p>\n

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

Marina Yuryevna KADETOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

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

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

19\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence 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
17.<\/td>\n45271\/21<\/p>\n

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

Pavel Olegovich GERASIMENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

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

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

13\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record 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
18.<\/td>\n45276\/21<\/p>\n

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

Valentina Mikhaylovna VESNYANKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record 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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n46593\/21<\/p>\n

31\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Yana Aleksandrovna ZENKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Tambov<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\nTambov Regional Court<\/p>\n

01\/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
20.<\/td>\n47098\/21<\/p>\n

16\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Vladislav Andreyevich LYGIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/p>\n

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

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

17\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record 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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n47146\/21<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Stanislav Vladimirovich MERENKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Memorial 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 for 10 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

18\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 1.20 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 and 7.30 p.m. on 01\/02\/2021;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of 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 – 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
22.<\/td>\n47239\/21<\/p>\n

16\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Khasana Aleksandrovna ROKOSSOVSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Murmansk<\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 10,000<\/td>\nMurmansk Regional Court<\/p>\n

09\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 8.00 a.m. on 30\/01\/2021 and 7.00 p.m. on 01\/02\/2021;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n28736\/22<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksey Igorevich NEFEDOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Novosibirsk<\/p>\n

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

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

24\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 1.20 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021,<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n30801\/22<\/p>\n

09\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Gleb Yuryevich LEVOCHKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

09\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 7.30 p.m. on 24\/02\/2021 and 4.00 p.m. on 26\/04\/2021;<\/p>\n

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

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n32624\/22<\/p>\n

09\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Anastasiya Georgiyevna TAYNS-KOVALEVSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nRally “Free Navalnyy”<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

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

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

09\/12\/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
26.<\/td>\n35521\/22<\/p>\n

29\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Konstantin Sergeyevich MAKLYAK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Levchenko Aleksey Alekseyevich<\/p>\n

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

Anti-war rally<\/p>\n

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

06\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\ndetention for 15 days<\/td>\nRostov Regional Court<\/p>\n

18\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 3.20 p.m. on 06\/03\/2022 and 8.10 a.m. on 07\/03\/2022;<\/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
27.<\/td>\n35532\/22<\/p>\n

29\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Olesya Igorevna BAKHTIYAROVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

2003<\/td>\n

Levchenko Aleksey Alekseyevich<\/p>\n

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

Anti-war rally<\/p>\n

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

06\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\ndetention for 15 days<\/td>\nRostov Regional Court<\/p>\n

10\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) -unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 3.20 p.m. on 06\/03\/2022 and 10.00\u00a0a.m. on 07\/03\/2022;<\/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
28.<\/td>\n36163\/22<\/p>\n

01\/07\/2022<\/td>\n

Tatyana Vladimirovna CHECHETKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Kabirov Rushan Rafisovich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Anti-war rally<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

27\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

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

27\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 4.00 p.m. on 27\/02\/2022 and the morning of 28\/02\/2022 when the applicant was transferred to the court;<\/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>\n36231\/22<\/p>\n

01\/07\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1994<\/td>\n

Levchenko Aleksey Alekseyevich<\/p>\n

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

Anti-war rally<\/p>\n

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

06\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\ndetention for 15 days<\/td>\nSverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

18\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 6.10 p.m. on 06\/03\/2022 and the morning of 07\/03\/2022;<\/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
30.<\/td>\n45186\/22<\/p>\n

06\/09\/2022<\/td>\n

Vakhtang Anatolyevich PATALAKH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nAnti-war rally<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

26\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB 11,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

11\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 5.40 p.m. and 10.56 p.m. on 26\/02\/2022;<\/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