THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF LAPSHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 65031\/16 and 2 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n22 October 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Lapshina and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President, Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in three applications (nos.\u00a065031\/16, 67815\/16 and 10415\/17) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by three Russian nationals, Ms\u00a0Valentina OlegovnaLapshina, Ms Svetlana NikolayevnaMishina and Mr Sergey KapitonovichVyatkin (\u201cthe applicants\u201d). Their details appear in Appendix I below.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by Mr O. Beznisko, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 20\u00a0July 2017 notice of the complaints concerning the applicants\u2019 arrest, impartiality of the tribunal and the fairness of the proceedings was given to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no.\u00a065031\/16, Lapshina v. Russia<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0 Incident of 4\u00a0December 2015<\/em><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 4\u00a0December 2015 the police arrested the applicant and at 5.40\u00a0p.m. brought her to the police station in order to draw up an administrative\u2011offence record. According to the administrative-offence record, while in a public place the applicant had offered to photograph passers-by with her pet pigeons. As a result, she had gathered a group of approximately five people around her. The police construed her actions as obstructing passage along the street and access to nearby buildings for the public. At 8.30 p.m. the applicant was released.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 22\u00a0January 2016 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered her to pay a monetary fine in the amount of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant appealed, alleging, inter alia, that there had been no grounds for her arrest and detention.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 14\u00a0June 2016 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 22\u00a0January 2016 on appeal. The court found that the applicant\u2019s arrest and detention carried out for the purposes of preparing an administrative-offence record had been in full compliance with the applicable legislation.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0 Incident of 5\u00a0December 2015<\/em><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 5\u00a0December 2015 the police arrested the applicant, accusing her of obstructing passage along the street and access to nearby buildings for the public. At 2.30 p.m. the police brought the applicant to the police station in order to draw up an administrative-offence record, according to which, the applicant had gathered a group of approximately twenty people around her, offering to photograph them with her pet pigeons. At 5.30 p.m. the applicant was released.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 22\u00a0January 2016 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered her to pay a monetary fine in the amount of RUB\u00a010,000. The applicant appealed, alleging, inter alia, that there had been no grounds for her arrest and detention.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 22\u00a0April 2016 the City Court upheld the judgment of 22\u00a0January 2016 on appeal. The court found that the applicant\u2019s arrest and detention carried out for the purposes of preparing an administrative-offence record had been in full compliance with the applicable legislation.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no.\u00a067815\/16, Mishina v. Russia<\/strong><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 23\u00a0December 2015 the police arrested the applicant and at 7.50\u00a0p.m. brought her to the police station in order to draw up an administrative\u2011offence record. According to the administrative-offence record, while in a public place the applicant had offered passers-by a pony ride. As a result, she had gathered a group of approximately thirty persons around her. The police construed her actions as obstructing passage along the street and access to an underground station for the public. At 9.40 p.m. the applicant was released.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 19\u00a0January 2016 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered her to pay a monetary fine in the amount of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant appealed, alleging, inter alia, that there had been no grounds for her arrest and detention.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 10\u00a0May 2016 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 22\u00a0January 2016 on appeal. The court found that the applicant\u2019s arrest and detention carried out for the purposes of preparing an administrative-offence record had been in full compliance with the applicable legislation.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application no.\u00a010415\/17, Vyatkin v. Russia<\/strong><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 10\u00a0February 2016 the police arrested the applicant and at 7.20\u00a0p.m. brought him to the police station in order to draw up an administrative-offence record. According to the administrative-offence record, while in a public place, the applicant had played the musical saw, gathering around him a group of approximately ten persons. The police construed his actions as obstructing passage along the street and access to a shopping centre for the public. At 9.40 p.m. the applicant was released.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 25\u00a0February 2016 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay a monetary fine in the amount of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant appealed, alleging, inter alia, that there had been no grounds for his arrest and detention.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 26\u00a0July 2016 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 22\u00a0January 2016 on appeal. The court found that the applicant\u2019s arrest and detention carried out for the purposes of preparing an administrative-offence record had been in full compliance with the applicable legislation.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Enforcement of the judgments against the applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government, the judgments against Ms Lapshina (application no.\u00a065031\/16) and Ms Mishina (application no.\u00a067815\/16) have not been enforced. The bailiffs service did not receive the bills of execution and no enforcement proceedings were instituted. As regards Mr Vyatkin (application no.\u00a010415\/17), the bailiffs recovered RUB\u00a041.93 from one of the applicant\u2019s bank accounts. It was impossible to recover the remainder of the judgment debt.<\/p>\n II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Time-limits for institution of enforcement proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Under the Enforcement Proceedings Act (Law no.\u00a0229-FZ), enacted on 2\u00a0October 2007 with further amendments, the bill of enforcement in respect of a judgment delivered by a court of general jurisdiction can be submitted for execution within three years of the said judgment\u2019s becoming final (Article\u00a021).<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Administrative escorting and arrest<\/strong><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The domestic legal provisions governing administrative arrest (escorting) and detention are set out in the case of Butkevich v. Russia (see, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a033-36, 13 February 2018).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that their arrest had been in contravention of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so[.]\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0 The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered that the applicants\u2019 complaints should be rejected as inadmissible. Firstly, they claimed that the applicants had applied to the Court belatedly. In the applicants\u2019 case, the six-month period should be calculated from the moment of their respective arrests. They also pointed out that the applicants had raised the issue of the alleged unlawfulness of their arrest only before the appellate courts and had not brought it to the attention of the court at the first level of jurisdiction. In the alternative, the Government argued that the applicants had not exhausted effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints. In particular, they had failed to apply for a review of the judgments in their cases.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants considered their complaints to be admissible.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0 The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Exhaustion of effective remedies<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that, as pointed out by the Government, the applicants did not raise an issue of the alleged unlawfulness of their arrest before the court at the first level of jurisdiction. They did, however, raise that issue before the appellate court, which was competent to review the issue and, in fact, did so in the present case. The Court considers, therefore, that the applicants raised, in substance, their complaints in the domestic proceedings. As regards the Government\u2019s contention that it was incumbent on the applicants to apply for a review of the judgments in order to exhaust effective domestic remedies as required by the Convention, the Court reiterates that the review procedure referred to by the Government is not subject to any ascertainable time-limit and thus cannot be considered as a remedy for the purpose of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Smadikov v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), no. 10810\/15, 18 February 2015). The Court dismisses the Government\u2019s objection.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Compliance with the six-month rule<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0As to the Government\u2019s argument that the six-month period should be calculated from the date of the applicants\u2019 arrest and in so far as the Government may be understood to argue that there was no remedy to exhaust in respect of the applicants\u2019 grievances under Article\u00a05 of the Convention, the Court considers that, in the absence of a clear stance on the Government\u2019s part as to the availability of an effective domestic remedy against the unlawful arrest within the framework of the administrative proceedings (see paragraph 21 above, in which the Government argued that it had been incumbent on the applicants to raise the complaints under Article\u00a05 of the Convention in course of the administrative proceedings), the applicants cannot be reproached for having made a reasonable attempt to comply with the exhaustion requirement by raising the issue of the alleged unlawfulness of their arrest and detention before the appellate court which considered their administrative case (compare Tsvetkova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 54381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a0102, 10 April 2018). Accordingly, the Court finds that the final decisions for the purpose of the application of the six-month rule are the judgments delivered by the appellate court and that the applicants have complied with the six months\u2019 requirement as shown in the table below:<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Conclusions<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Articles\u00a027 \u00a7 2 and 27 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, the Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 arrest and ensuring detention had been in compliance with law. The police had had a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed an administrative offence. The applicants\u2019 detention at the police station had not exceeded three hours, as required by national legislation.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants maintained their complaints.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the expressions \u201clawful\u201d and \u201cin accordance with a procedure prescribed by law\u201d in Article 5 \u00a7 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10\u00a0June 1996, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a040-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011III).<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0It has not been disputed that during the periods indicated (see paragraphs 4, 7, 10 and 13 above), the applicants were deprived of their liberty within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government contended that the legal grounds for their arrest had been Article 27 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which had empowered the police to escort individuals, that is to say to take them to the police station in order to draw up an administrative-offence record. In this connection, the Court observes that the national regulations in question specify that a person suspected of having committed an administrative offence could only be \u201cescorted\u201d to a police station and detained there for the purpose of preparing an administrative-offence record, if such a record could not be drawn up at the place where the offence had been discovered. It further notes that Article\u00a027 \u00a7 3 of the Code requires that the arrest and ensuing detention be (1) an \u201cexceptional case\u201d and (2) \u201cnecessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative case and to secure the enforcement of any penalty to be imposed\u201d.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined the materials submitted, the Court considers, and the Government have not argued to the contrary, that the police were not prevented from preparing the administrative-offence record on the spot. Nor does it discern any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the applicants\u2019 arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (compare Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818\/09 and 14 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0489-90, 7 February 2017). The Court concludes therefore that the national authorities failed to comply with the applicable rules of domestic procedure. It therefore considers that the applicants\u2019 arrest and detention were not \u201cin accordance with a procedure prescribed by law\u201d.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that the District Court which had considered their cases had not been impartial and the proceedings against them had been unfair. They relied on Article\u00a06 of the Convention, which, is no far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.\u201d<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested that argument. They considered that the proceedings against the applicants had been in compliance with the guarantees set out in Article\u00a06 of the Convention. The fact that the prosecuting party had not taken part in the proceedings should not be construed as having had an adverse effect on the impartiality of the tribunal. It had been open to the applicants to challenge the judge had they had doubts as regards his or her impartiality.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants maintained their complaints.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds it appropriate to examine firstly, of its own motion, whether the applicants\u2019 complaints are admissible under Article 35 \u00a7 3\u00a0(b) of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:<\/p>\n Article 35 \u00a7 3(b)<\/p>\n \u201c3.\u00a0\u00a0The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that:<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.<\/p>\n …\u201d<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the main issue contained in the above mentioned admissibility criterion is whether the applicants suffered a \u201csignificant disadvantage\u201d. Inspired by the general principle of de minimis non curat praetor, this admissibility criterion hinges on the idea that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, should attain a minimum level of severity to warrant consideration by an international court (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no.\u00a025551\/05, ECHR\u00a02010). The assessment of this minimum level is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case(see Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no.\u00a023563\/07, \u00a7\u00a055, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further observes that on a number of previous occasions it has examined allegations of violations of Article\u00a06 of the Convention in the course of administrative proceedings. Having established that (1) the size of the fine imposed on the applicants had not represented a financial hardship for them and (2) the subject matter of the complaint did not give rise to an important matter of principle, it found that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage (see, Rinck v. France (dec.), no. 18774\/09, 19\u00a0November 2010, and \u0162iglar v. Romania (dec.), no. 47600\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a017-27, 28\u00a0November 2017).<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined the circumstances of the present case, the Court discerns no reason to hold otherwise. Even though the amount of the fine may seem significant, the Court does not lose sight that the judgments ordering the applicants to pay the fine were not enforced save for in the case of Mr Vyatkin, where the bailiff recovered a negligible amount of approximately 0.60 euros (EUR). It further notes that the statutory three\u2011year time-limit for institution of enforcement proceedings against Ms\u00a0Lapshina and Ms Mishina has expired and the judgments against them are no longer enforceable. In Mr Vyatkin\u2019s case, the bailiff established that the recovery of the judgment debt had been impossible (see paragraph 16 above). Accordingly, the adverse effect of the judgments rendered against the applicants, if any, did not affect their life. Nor can the Court conclude that the subject matter of the complaints gives rise to an important matter of principle. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants did not suffer a significant disadvantage as a result of the alleged violations of the Convention.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly, the Court accepts that the present case has been duly considered by domestic courts and that respect for human rights does not require an examination of this complaint on the merits (compare Cavajda v.\u00a0the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17696\/07, 29 March 2011).<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this complaint must be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage are summarised in the table below:<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered the applicants\u2019 claims excessive and unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the nature and scope of the violations found, the Court awards to each of the applicants EUR 1,000 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 claims for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court are summarised in the table below:<\/p>\n In support of their claims, the applicants submitted copies of the legal\u2011services agreements signed with their representative. They requested that the amount in respect of the legal fees for the proceedings before the Court be paid into the bank account of their representative.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered the applicants\u2019 claims excessive and unsubstantiated. They further pointed out that the applicants had not actually incurred the expenses claimed and that the addenda to the agreements specifying the actual amounts of the legal fees had been signed only by the applicants\u2019 representative. Lastly, they submitted that the applicants had failed to substantiate their claim in respect of postal and telephone expenses.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,500 covering legal costs and expenses to be paid into the bank account of Mr\u00a0O.\u00a0Beznisko, the lawyer who represented the applicants in the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Declares the complaints concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicants\u2019 arrest and detention admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Holdsthat there have been violations of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0 that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months the following amounts,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to each of the applicants;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses. The said amount is to be paid into the bank account of Mr O.\u00a0Beznisko, a lawyer who represented the applicants;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0 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 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1 ______________<\/p>\n Appendix<\/strong><\/p>\n List of cases<\/strong><\/p>\n Date of Birth<\/p>\n Place of Residence<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 04\/03\/1996<\/p>\n Fryazino<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 01\/04\/1983<\/p>\n Moscow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 01\/09\/1960<\/p>\n Moscow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nGilberto Felici, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Application no.<\/td>\n Date of the final decision delivered by the Moscow City Court (appellate court)<\/td>\n Date of introduction of the application<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 65031\/16<\/td>\n 14\u00a0June 2016<\/td>\n 21\u00a0October 2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 22\u00a0April 2016<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 67815\/16<\/td>\n 10\u00a0May 2016<\/td>\n 7\u00a0November 2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 10415\/17<\/td>\n 26\u00a0July 2016<\/td>\n 23\u00a0January 2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n
\n Application number<\/td>\n Amount (euros (EUR))<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 65031\/16<\/td>\n 20,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 67815\/16<\/td>\n 10,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 10415\/17<\/td>\n 15,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n
\n Application number<\/td>\n Legal fees (EUR)<\/td>\n Postal and telephone expenses (EUR)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 65031\/16<\/td>\n 18,200<\/td>\n 120<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 67815\/16<\/td>\n 8,300<\/td>\n 60<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 10415\/17<\/td>\n 9,900<\/td>\n 60<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\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\n\n
\n No.<\/td>\n Application no.<\/td>\n Case name<\/td>\n Lodged on<\/td>\n Applicant<\/p>\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 65031\/16<\/td>\n Lapshina v. Russia<\/td>\n 21\/10\/2016<\/td>\n Valentina Olegovna LAPSHINA<\/p>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 67815\/16<\/td>\n Mishina v. Russia<\/td>\n 07\/11\/2016<\/td>\n Svetlana Nikolayevna MISHINA<\/p>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 10415\/17<\/td>\n Vyatkin v. Russia<\/td>\n 23\/01\/2017<\/td>\n Sergey Kapitonovich VYATKIN<\/p>\n