THIRD SECTION
CASE OF AKAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 79252/17 and 24 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Akayev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 February 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. On the different dates the applicants were taken to police stations as administrative suspects of offences related to public events. They were subsequently administratively convicted for participation in different public events.
5. The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention7. The applicants complained that the administrative escorting and arrest procedures and their ensuing detention had been in contravention of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
8. The Court has previously examined complaints brought by persons arrested and detained in similar circumstances in Russia. Having examined the applicable domestic regulations, the Court established that, under the Russian law, the escorting to a police station and ensuing detention there for the purpose of preparing an administrative arrest record would be permissible only if such record could not be drawn up at the place where the alleged offence had been discovered. The law also required that such escorting and detention be an “exceptional case” and necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative case or to secure the enforcement of any penalty to be imposed (see, for example, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 71, 15 November 2018), and that the use of these measures be properly documented (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018; Kalyapin v. Russia, no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019; and Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017). The authorities’ failure to comply with these requirements, in the Court’s view, led to it finding a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see the mentioned cases, as well as Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, and Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion (see Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 10810/15, 31 January 2017), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.
10. The Court discerns nothing in the official records to conclude that recourse to such procedures was justified, as required by the Russian law. In particular, the applicants were taken to the police station as administrative suspects, whereas there was no evidence or assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records and to achieve the objectives set out in the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO), that is to establish the suspects’ identity (see Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 34-36). It concludes that the national authorities failed to comply with the applicable rules of domestic procedure and considers that the applicants’ escorting, arrest and detention were not “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, 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 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground.
13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well‑established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of administrative-offence cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the CAO; Kasparov and Others v. Russia no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013; and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of public assemblies).
14. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by the applicants in relation to their administrative-offence proceedings.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS15. The applicants in applications nos. 39139/18 and 43789/18 also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention and the Protocols thereto.
16. The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
17. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION18. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If 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.”
19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014, and, as a recent example, Akhtyamov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 17105/18 and 8 others), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, and finds the remainder of applications nos. 39139/18 and 43789/18 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds(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;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
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 and end of unauthorised detention
Specific defects others than those mentioned in the paragraph 10 of the present judgment
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
79252/17
02/11/2017
Rustam Magomedovich AKAYEV
1987
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
From 4.20 p.m. on 26/03/2017 to 3.45 p.m. on 27/03/2017 (until the hearing of the first-instance court in the administrative offence case)
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, an Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Administrative detention record drawn more than three hours after the apprehension (Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies -
Anti-corruption rally, Nizhny Novgorod, on 26/03/2017, two sets of administrative offence proceedings:
1) Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO; fine of RUB 500; Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court, 04/05/2017.
2) Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO; fine of RUB 10,000; Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court, 15/06/2017.
3,900
79257/17
02/11/2017
Roman Yevgenyevich GUBAYDULLIN
1976
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
From 4.20 p.m. on 26/03/2017 to 4.30 p.m. on 27/03/2017 (until the hearing of the first instance court in the administrative offence case)
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above). Administrative offence record drawn more than three hours after the apprehension (Fortalnov and Others, cited above, §§ 76-79).
Art. 11 (1) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies -
Anti-corruption rally, Nizhny Novgorod, on 26/03/2017, two sets of administrative offence proceedings:
1) Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO; fine of RUB 500; Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court, 04/05/2017.
2) Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO; fine of RUB 10,000. Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court, 24/05/2017.
3,900
79259/17
02/11/2017
Vadim Viktorovich KOZLOV
1973
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
From 3.00 p.m. on 26/03/2017 to 11.25 a.m. on 27/03/2017 (until the hearing of the first instance court in the administrative offence case)
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above). Administrative detention record drawn more than three hours after the apprehension (Fortalnov and Others, cited above, §§ 76-79).
Art. 11 (1) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies -
Anti-corruption rally, Nizhny Novgorod, on 26/03/2017, two sets of administrative offence proceedings:
1) Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO; fine of RUB 500; Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court, 03/05/2017.
2) Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO; fine of RUB 10,000; Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court, 03/05/2017.
3,900
28098/18
30/05/2018
Vyacheslav Valeryevich GRACHEV
1978
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From 3.30 p.m. to 8.30. p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017.
Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO; fine of RUB 20,000; Moscow City Court, 30/03/2018.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
34439/18
18/07/2018
Kirill Valeryevich YARIN
1985
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From 4.10 p.m. to 11.10 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017.
Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 1,000, Moscow City Court, 18/01/2018.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
36098/18
26/07/2018
Roman Pavlovich TOMCHUK
1978
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From 4.30 p.m. on 26/03/2017 to 4.30 a.m. on 28/03/2017.
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above). Administrative detention record drawn more than three hours after the apprehension (Fortalnov and Others, cited above, §§ 76-79).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 26/03/2017; Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO; fine of RUB 20,000; Moscow City Court, 06/03/2018.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
36104/18
26/07/2018
Kirill Vladimirovich SHVEDOV
1991
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From 2.40 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above). Administrative detention record drawn more than three hours after the apprehension (Fortalnov and Others, cited above, §§ 76-79).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, Moscow City Court, 26/01/2018.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
38563/18
06/08/2018
Vladimir Igorevich IZVEKOV
1956
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From 1.55 p. m on 12/06/2017 to 00.50 a.m. on 13/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Moscow City Court, 08/02/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
38740/18
26/07/2018
Nikita Alekseyevich SAFONOV
1988
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
From 4.00 p.m. to 10.40 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above). Administrative detention record drawn more than three hours after the apprehension (Fortalnov and Others, cited above, §§ 76-79).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, Moscow City Court, 26/01/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
39129/18
14/08/2018
Ivan Aleksandrovich ZAKHAROV
1997
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From on 4.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, Moscow City Court, 14/02/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
39139/18
10/08/2018
Yelena Tagirovna OLKHOVA
1980
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
From 2.50 p.m.to 6.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies, two manifestations:
1) Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Moscow City Court, 12/02/2018.
2) Tumen, on 31/01/2021, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000, Tumen Regional Court, 07/04/2021.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
39319/18
07/08/2018
Filipp Filippovich BLAGOVESHCHENSKIY
1994
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
From 4.00 p.m. to 9.15 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Moscow City Court, 14/02/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
41386/18
18/08/2018
Aleksandra Sergeyevna RASTORGUYEVA
1995
Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
From 2.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017 to 2.00 a.m. on 13/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above). Administrative detention record drawn more than three hours after the apprehension, and the time of arrest noted therein was at variance with the actual time of the apprehension (Fortalnov and Others, cited above, §§ 76-79).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, Moscow City Court, 30/03/2018;
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
42269/18
27/08/2018
Viktor Viktorovich TABAKOV
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From 3.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Moscow City Court, 28/02/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
42380/18
24/08/2018
Denis Aleksandrovich SHCHETININ
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
From 3.00 p.m. to 11.45 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, Moscow City Court, 28/02/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
42688/18
25/06/2018
Ivan Vladimirovich GUSHCHIN
1998
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From 2.20 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, Moscow City Court, 22/01/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
43152/18
30/08/2018
Dmitriy Ivanovich BELYY
1978
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
From 4.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, Moscow City Court, 02/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
43789/18
02/09/2018
Boris Anatolyevich KANTOROVITCH
1992
Vorobyev Viktor Viktorovich
Syktyvkar
From 3.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above). Administrative detention record drawn more than three hours after the apprehension (Fortalnov and Others, cited above, §§ 76-79).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Moscow City Court, 02/03/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
43924/18
05/09/2018
Mikhail Nikolayevich IVANOV
1968
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
From 2.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Record of the administrative offence was drawn only on 15/06/2017, three days after the applicant’s detention, so that the aim of the applicant’s escorting and detention is unclear.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, Moscow City Court, 14/03/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
45715/18
22/09/2018
Sergey Sergeyevich KUDRYAVTSEV
1986
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From 4.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Moscow City Court, 06/06/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11
3,900
46113/18
16/09/2018
Tatyana Vasilyevna KOMAROVA
1995
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
From 4.40 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, Moscow City Court, 16/03/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
46140/18
26/09/2018
Nikita Maksimovich KOZYREV
1998
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
From 5.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017 to 00.45 a.m. on 13/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Moscow City Court, 26/03/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
46445/18
21/09/2018
Yakov Vladimirovich YERMAKOV
1985
From 4.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
The time of arrest noted in the administrative detention record was at variance with the actual time of the apprehension (Fortalnov and Others, cited above, §§ 76-79).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, Moscow City Court, 22/03/2018.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
46712/18
22/09/2018
Roman Vladimirovich STRAKHOV
1972
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
From 2.45 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. on 12/06/2017
No written record of the administrative escort or detention (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017, and Fortalnov and Others, cited above, §§ 76-79).
Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti‑corruption manifestation, Moscow, on 12/06/2017, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, Moscow City Court, 22/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
3,900
30569/20
29/06/2020
Denis Vladimirovich MAKSIMOV
1978
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Then Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
1) From 5.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 31/12/2019
2) From 5.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021
3) From 5.00 p.m. on 01/02.2021 to 11.00 a.m. on 02/02/2021 (until the first instance hearings in an administrative offence case)
1) Administrative offence record was drawn on 24/01/2020, three weeks after the applicant’s apprehension, so that the aim of that measure is unclear.
1), 2) and 3) Detention as an
administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period and without “exceptional
circumstances” (Art. 27.3 § 1 and 27.5 §§ 1-4 of CAO) (see Butkevich, §§ 63-65; Tsvetkova and Others v Russia, §§ 121-22, both cited above).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies. Two manifestations in Moscow:
1) On 31/12/2019, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, Moscow City Court, 20/04/2020.
2) On 23/01/2021, Art. 20.2 § 8 of CAO, fine of RUB 150,000, Moscow City Court, 16/03/2021.
Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative offence proceedings detailed above under Art. 11.
6,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.