Published on 5 February 2024
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 84744/17
Ivan Eduardovich AYDAROV against Russia
and 19 other applications
(see list appended)
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 11 January 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.
In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER
The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start date of unauthorised detention
End date of unauthorised detention
Specific defects
Other complaints under well-established case-law
84744/17*
07/12/2017
Ivan Eduardovich AYDAROV
1998
08/09/2017,
5.15 p.m.
10/09/2017,
10.25 a.m.,
until court hearing
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
21362/18*
16/04/2018
Ilya Vladimirovich TOLSTOY
1988
12/10/2017, 2.00 p.m.
13/10/2017,
1.00 p.m.,
until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 26/12/2017
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 26/12/2017
28261/18*
28/05/2018
Semen Aleksandrovich KOCHKIN
1993
Aleksey Vladimirovich Glukhov
Novocheboksarsk
03/05/2018,
2.10 p.m.
22/01/2021,
8.10 p.m.
03/05/2018,
6.00 p.m.
23/01/2021,
9.15 a.m.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 10/05/2018, 08/02/2021, 12/02/2021, 26/11/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of conviction
(1) under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for having published on 01/05/2018 on his page "VKontakte" a video calling for the participation in the rally on 05/05/2018 in Cheboksary; final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 10/05/2018, detention of 10 days
(2) under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for having published on 22/01/2018 a video on his page "VKontakte" a call for participation in the rally on 28/01/2018 against President’s elections; final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 19/04/2018, 80 hours of community works;
(3) under article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO for having published on YouTube a video inviting his potential voters to a meeting on 29/08/2020 in Cheboksary; final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 20/10/2020, fine of RUB 10,000; (4) under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for having published a video on different social media calling for the participation in a rally "Free Navalnyy" on 23/01/2021, final decisions: Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic, 08/02/2021 and 12/02/2021, detention of 7 and 8 days,
Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators –
(1) 22/08/2020 at 4.07 p.m. Cheboksary, solo picket. Administrative charges and penalty: article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 20/10/2020;
(2) 23/08/2020 at 4.02 p.m. Cheboksary, solo picket. Administrative charges and penalty: article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 20/10/2020,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of conviction under article 20.3 § 1 of the CAO for publishing twice on social networks a symbol "Vote Smart" relating to Navalnyy and FBK and being considered by the authorities as extremist, each penalty of RUB 1,500, final decisions in both proceedings: the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 26/11/2021,
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:
conviction of 04/05/2018, 10 days’ detention, appeal on 10/05/2018, conviction on 23/01/2021, 7 days’ detention, appeal on 08/02/2021 and conviction on 06/02/2021, 8 days’ detention, appeal on 12/02/2021
15866/19*
11/03/2019
Lavrentiy Viktorovich TSVETKOV
1993
Stanislav Vladimirovich NADYRSHIN
1992
Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
09/09/2018,
5.15 p.m.
11/09/2018,
6.00 p.m.,
until court hearing, raised on appeal on 20/09/2021
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
27860/19*
06/05/2019
Mukhammadyusuf Zikrullo ugli NEMATZHONOV
1991
Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin
Velikiy Novgorod
07/11/2018
13/11/2018
09/11/2018,
violation of migration rules
14/11/2018,
disorderly conduct
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018);
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
2371/20*
12/11/2019
Dmitriy Nikolayevich IVANOV
2000
Ashot Aleksandrovich Andreyev
Syktyvkar
18/07/2019,
3.30 p.m.
19/07/2019,
until court hearing
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - detention facility for suspects in administrative offence proceedings, Syktyvkar, 18/07/2019 - 20/07/2019,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
11549/20
25/02/2020
Igor Nikolayevich GRISHIN
1956
27/07/2019
27/07/2019,
raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - Inability to adduce evidence, conviction was based on accusation evidence; final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019, fine of RUB 10,000
13409/20*
28/02/2020
Aleksey Sergeyevich SMAGIN
1995
03/08/2019,
3.00 p.m.
04/08/2019,
12.10 a.m.,
raised on appeal, final decision: Moscow City Court, 14/10/2019
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
46529/20*
22/09/2020
Aleksey Mikhaylovich KHOLKIN
1971
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk
St Petersburg
30/06/2020
08/07/2020
30/06/2020,
raised on appeal
08/07/2020,
raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
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 Regional Court, 03/07/2020,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for making calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 16/06/2020 against construction of a plant published in VKontakte; final decision: Moscow Regional Court, 03/07/2020, detention of 3 days,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.3 § 1 of the CAO for publication on Facebook allegedly inciting to hatred; final decision: Moscow Regional Court, 20/08/2020, detention of 5 days,
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 in both proceedings
40528/21*
30/07/2021
Aleksey Maksimovich SHVARTS
1996
22/01/2021,
11.00 p.m.
20/04/2021,
12.40 p.m.
23/01/2021,
12.30 p.m.,
until court hearing, raised on appeal on 03/02/2021 (applications of 30/07/2021 and 12/08/2021)
22/04/2021,
10.10 a.m.,
until court hearing, raised on appeal on 29/04/2022 (two applications of 22/10/2021)
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events -
1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for making calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 published in VKontakte and Telegram; final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 03/02/2021 and 01/03/2021, detention of 30 days each;
2) administrative conviction under articles 20.2 § 8 and 19.3 § 1 of the CAO for making calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 published in Telegram and disobeying police; final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 29/04/2021, detention of 30 and 12 days, respectively;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 03/02/2021, 01/03/2021 and 29/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based; final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 03/02/2021 and 01/03/2021
43078/21*
18/08/2021
Olga Anatolyevna SHKOLINA
1977
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev
Moscow
23/01/2021,
12 p.m.
23/01/2021,
10 p.m.,
raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 05/03/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 05/03/2021, fine of RUB 24,000,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based
44189/21*
18/08/2021
Marina Andreyevna YEVDOKIMOVA
1995
Yelena Anatolyevna Mamedova
Samara
31/01/2021
01/02/2021,
raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Samara Regional Court, 18/02/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on YouTube, VKontakte; final decision: Samara Regional Court, 18/02/2021, detention of 28 days,
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
55918/21*
23/10/2021
Aleksey Vladimirovich BUCHNEV
1980
31/01/2021
31/01/2021,
raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of the administrative proceedings on the charges under Article 20.2 § 5 CAO, Privokzalnyy District Court of Tula, 25/02/2021, Tula Regional Court, 16/04/2021. The applicant did not attend the appeal hearing. He received a copy of the relevant judgment on 23/04/2021
58475/21*
17/11/2021
Fedor Ivanovich ORLOV
1988
22/01/2021,
9.50 p.m.
04/12/2021,
1.00 p.m.
11/12/2021,
2.30 p.m.
26/03/2022,
12.30 p.m.
23/01/2022,
7.10 p.m.,
until court hearing, raised on appeal on 18/05/2021 (application of 17/11/2021)
06/12/2021,
1.35 p.m.
(application of 31/05/2022)
12/12/2021,
4.30 p.m.
(application of 31/05/2022)
27/03/2022
(application of 29/07/2022)
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events -
1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 18/05/2021, detention of 9 days (application of 17/12/2021);
2) administrative conviction under articles 20.1 § 2 and 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for participation in a meeting against QR-codes on 04/12/2021 in Voronezh; final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 01/02/2022 and 03/02/2022, detention of 5 and 7 days respectively (application of 31/05/2022),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 18/05/2021, 01/02/2022 and 03/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based and adduce evidence; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 18/05/2021,
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; final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 01/02/2022 and 03/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - inability to adduce evidence; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 29/03/2022, detention of 8 days, conviction under article 20.1 § 2 of the CAO for swearing in public
6144/22
08/01/2022
Vladimir Mikhaylovich KOTOV
1990
Yuliya Sergeyevna POSEVKINA
1976
Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Mr Kotov
20/04/2021,
2 p.m.
22/04/2021,
0.25 a.m.,
until court hearing, raised on appeal on 08/07/2021
Applicant Kotov taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events -
Mr Kotov: administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 08/07/2021, fine of RUB 20,000;
Ms Posevkina: administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 13/10/2021, fine of RUB 10,000
13538/22*
08/02/2022
Nikita Gennadyevich ONEGIN
2001
Aleksey Mikhaylovich Kuroptev
Balashikha
23/01/2021,
3.00 p.m.
24/01/2021,
7.00 p.m.,
final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 06/06/2022, compensation proceedings
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly -
1) arrest and detention on the day of manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Arkhangelsk, article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, the applicant was not convicted under CAO, interference in the form of arrest and detention; compensation proceedings, claim refused, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 06/06/2022;
2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Arkhangelsk, final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 07/10/2021, fine of RUB 14,000,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 07/10/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based, final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 07/10/2021
16629/22*
08/03/2022
Anatoliy Vladimirovich CHEPIKOV
1958
Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zubarev
Vladivostok
25/07/2020
04/08/2020
08/08/2020
25/07/2020
04/08/2020
08/08/2020
The proceedings in respect of all three episodes of detention were subsequently discontinued (the applicant was acquitted). The relevant judgments were delivered on 09/09/2020, 12/10/2020 and 13/10/2020.
Subsequently the applicant sought non-pecuniary damages for violation of his rights set out in Articles 5, 10 and 11. The court acknowledged that the applicant’s detention and prosecution had been unlawful ands and awarded him RUB 30,000 (approximately, EUR 362). The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 13/12/2021.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)
7868/23*
16/01/2023
Anton Ivanovich IVANOV
1990
06/03/2022
06/03/2022,
raised on appeal on 19/09/2022
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
19124/23*
09/01/2023
Dmitriy Borisovich RUMSHINSKIY
1970
24/02/2022,
10.11 p.m.
25/02/2022,
2.25 a.m.,
raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for anti-war solo picket held on 24/02/2022 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/09/2022, fine of RUB 20,000
28935/23*
25/06/2023
Konstantin Aleksandrovich KOTOV
1985
17/01/2021
27/01/2021,
7.30 p.m.
17/01/2021,
raised in compensation proceedings, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 17/05/2023
28/01/2021,
9 a.m.,
raised in compensation proceedings, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 17/05/2023
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Detention of the applicant after conviction for disobeying police officers. On 28/01/2021 the applicant was convicted of disobeying police officers and sentenced to administrative detention of 5 days. On 13/10/2021 the conviction was quashed on appeal and proceedings were discontinued due to expiry of the limitation period. The court established that the applicant was a member of the elections commission and his persecution should had been authorised by a prosecutor and that his arrest and detention were unlawful. The applicant initiated compensation proceedings and was awarded RUB 20,000 (about EUR 380), final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 17/05/2021,
Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO for disobeying police officers when participating in meeting with Navalnyy on 17/01/2021 at the airport; on 13/10/2021 the conviction was quashed and the applicant initiated compensation proceedings which ended on 17/05/2023; the amount of award: EUR 380