{"id":22128,"date":"2024-01-18T13:05:06","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T13:05:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22128"},"modified":"2024-01-18T13:05:07","modified_gmt":"2024-01-18T13:05:07","slug":"case-of-yakhnovets-and-others-v-russia-32174-21-and-27-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22128","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF YAKHNOVETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 32174\/21 and 27 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
\nFIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF YAKHNOVETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 32174\/21 and 27 others \u2013 see appended list)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 January 2024<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, President,
\nGilberto Felici,
\nRaffaele Sabato, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 14 December 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, except for the fourth applicant, raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevi\u010dius and Others v.\u00a0Lithuania [GC], no.\u00a037553\/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a074552\/01, ECHR 2006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.\u00a0Moldova, no.\u00a033482\/06, 31\u00a0March 2009).<\/p>\n

9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568\/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204\/11, 4 December 2014, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613\/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly were not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n

11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818\/09 and 14 others, \u00a7 489, 7 February 2017, 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); Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos.\u00a060921\/17 and 7202\/18, \u00a7\u00a7 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; 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 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 these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n

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

4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-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 18 January 2024, 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 P\u00e9ter Paczolay
\nActing Deputy Registrar\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
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 (code of administrative offences, CAO)<\/strong><\/td>\nPenalty<\/strong><\/td>\nFinal domestic decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

Other complaints under<\/strong><\/p>\n

well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n32174\/21<\/p>\n

11\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Viktoriya Viktorovna YAKHNOVETS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 10 days<\/td>\nRostov Regional Court<\/p>\n

10\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12.30 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 5.00 p.m. on 01\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 10\/02\/2021;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01\/02\/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n33066\/21<\/p>\n

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

1) Nikolay Yevgenyevich VOKUYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

2) Stanislav Mikhaylovich OKULOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy-d\u2019Anjou<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a010,000 for each of the applicants<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Komi Republic, 31\/03\/2021 (first applicant) and<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2021 (second applicant)<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 31\/03\/2021 and 07\/04\/2021.<\/td>\n3,500<\/p>\n

to each applicant<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

3.<\/td>\n33571\/21<\/p>\n

22\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Valeriya Mikhaylovna IVANOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Velikiy Novgorod<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Velikiy Novgorod<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNovgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 3.15 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Novgorod Regional Court, 25\/02\/2021.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n35257\/21<\/p>\n

24\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Liliya Vasilyevna LOBKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1940<\/td>\n

Tykhta Vitaliy Dmitriyevich<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Furgal<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

09\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a05,000<\/td>\nKhabarovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

24\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n35379\/21<\/p>\n

16\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1974<\/td>\n

Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Meeting Mr\u00a0Navalnyy at the Vnukovo Airport of Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 12 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

20\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 6.10 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 17\/01\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 20\/02\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n36383\/21<\/p>\n

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

Nikita Igorevich CHESNOKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

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

article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 3\u00a0days<\/td>\nRostov Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 2.00 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 1.00 p.m. on 01\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative offence case,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 28\/04\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n36389\/21<\/p>\n

05\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Valentin Sergeyevich KVASHNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Furgal<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

23\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nKhabarovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

21\/01\/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 – final decisions: Khabarovsk Regional Court, 21\/01\/2021 and 04\/06\/2021.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n36506\/21<\/p>\n

27\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Vadim Vyacheslavovich ZUBKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Barnaul<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 10 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 10.00 a.m. on 08\/02\/2021 until the hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case on the same day,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 11\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/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.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n37916\/21<\/p>\n

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

Olga Alekseyevna KOMOLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of<\/p>\n

RUB 15,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 11.30 p.m. on 02\/02\/2021 to 7.50\u00a0a.m. on 03\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 14\/04\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n38412\/21<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Vladimirovich VILSHANSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 10 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 11.30 p.m. on 02\/02\/2021 to 8.30\u00a0p.m. on 03\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/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
11.<\/td>\n38516\/21<\/p>\n

14\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Boris Vladimirovich SARAPULOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1957<\/td>\n

Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Tbilisi, Georgia<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Irkutsk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Irkutsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

01\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Irkutsk Regional Court, 01\/06\/2021<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n38906\/21<\/p>\n

14\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1994<\/td>\n

Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Furgal<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Khabarovsk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

25\/08\/2020<\/td>\n

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for<\/p>\n

2 days (enforced), changed later to a fine of RUB 10,000 (not paid)<\/td>\n

Khabarovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from midnight on 04\/09\/2020 to 10.30\u00a0a.m. on 05\/09\/2020,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the administrative detention was enforced immediately after the decision of the first-instance court on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n38914\/21<\/p>\n

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

Yegor Nikolayevich BELOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of<\/p>\n

RUB 20,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

19\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 1.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 19\/05\/2021.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n39896\/21<\/p>\n

27\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Pavel Nikolayevich LUSHAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 10 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

10\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from on 11.00 a.m. 02\/02\/2021 to 8.00\u00a0p.m. 03\/02\/2021, the applicant was not released after the administrative offence record had been compiled; complaint raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 10\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/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.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n40196\/21<\/p>\n

27\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

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

2000<\/td>\n

Shindyapin Arkadiy Vitalyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 10 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.25\u00a0p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 01\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 05\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/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
16.<\/td>\n40444\/21<\/p>\n

27\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Yuryevich AFANASYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1965<\/td>\n

Shindyapin Arkadiy Vitalyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 10 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 3.50\u00a0p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 01\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 05\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n40532\/21<\/p>\n

30\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vladimirovich SMIRNOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yaroslavl<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 2 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 10 days<\/td>\nYaroslavl Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12.25\u00a0p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 01\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case.<\/td>\n5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n40877\/21<\/p>\n

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

Klim Dmitriyevich BONDAR<\/strong><\/p>\n

2002<\/td>\n

Eysmont Mariya Olegovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 8\u00a0days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 5.50 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 5.00 p.m. on 01\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 05\/02\/2021.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n41620\/21<\/p>\n

06\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Nikolayevich OZEROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 15 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 12.40\u00a0p.m. 31\/01\/2021 to midnight on 01\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/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
20.<\/td>\n42996\/21<\/p>\n

10\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Valentina Yevgenyevna VOLKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich<\/p>\n

Chelyabinsk<\/td>\n

Collective recording a video petition to the US President and the world community regarding the poor ecological conditions<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Chelyabinsk<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 20,000<\/td>\n

Chelyabinsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

10\/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 – final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 10\/02\/2021.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n43200\/21<\/p>\n

11\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Roman Alekseyevich ZHURAVLEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Kazan<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

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

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.00 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021 to 2.30\u00a0p.m. on 24\/01\/2021<\/td>\n4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n43242\/21<\/p>\n

09\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Viktor Yuryevich YEZHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/td>\n

Eysmont Mariya Olegovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 10 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 4.00 p.m. on 31\/01\/2021 to 4.30\u00a0p.m. on 01\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12\/02\/2021.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n43501\/21<\/p>\n

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

Vyacheslav Nikolayevich TITOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for 10 days<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 11.30\u00a0p.m. on 02\/02\/2021 to 12.00\u00a0a.m. on 03\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 24\/03\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/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
24.<\/td>\n43680\/21<\/p>\n

10\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Vladimir Aleksandrovich LAZAR<\/strong><\/p>\n

1999<\/td>\n

Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 10,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 4.30 p.m. to an unspecified time on 23\/01\/2021;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04\/03\/2021.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n44318\/21<\/p>\n

09\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Rinat Safayevich SALIKHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

article 20.2 \u00a7 6.1 of CAO<\/td>\nadministrative detention for<\/p>\n

8 days<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

10\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 11.45 p.m. on 02\/02\/2021 to 9.15\u00a0a.m. on 03\/02\/2021, hearing in the applicant\u2019s administrative-offence case,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 10\/02\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/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
26.<\/td>\n44678\/21<\/p>\n

26\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1998<\/td>\n

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Vilnius<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Kurgan<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

17\/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 – final decision: Kurgan Regional Court, 17\/03\/2021.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n47849\/21<\/p>\n

08\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Vadimovich ROYZMAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1962<\/td>\n

Fedotova Yuliya<\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rally (march) in support of Mr\u00a0Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yekaterinburg<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 20,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

fine of<\/p>\n

RUB 20,000<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

fine of RUB 20,000<\/td>\n

Sverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 13\/05\/2021 and<\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

Sverdlovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

26\/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 – final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 13\/05\/2021, 20\/05\/2021 and 26\/05\/2021;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 10 (1) – conviction for making calls to participate in public events – calls to participate at two unauthorised public rallies in support to Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Navalnyy, scheduled on 31\/01\/2021 and on 21\/04\/2021, under art. 20.2 \u00a7 2 of the CAO, administrative detention for one day, final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 13\/05\/2021 (both proceedings).<\/td>\n

5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n50470\/21<\/p>\n

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

Vladislav Vladimirovich BASHKINOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Solovyev Stanislav Vyacheslavovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Rally in support of Mr Navalnyy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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

RUB 20,000<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, from 6.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on 23\/01\/2021,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 02\/04\/2021.<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

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

The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. European Court of Human Rights FIRST SECTION CASE OF YAKHNOVETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 32174\/21 and 27 others \u2013 see appended…<\/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-22128","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\/22128","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=22128"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22128\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22129,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22128\/revisions\/22129"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=22128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=22128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=22128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}