SECOND SECTION
CASE OF BOGDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2984/20 and 24 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bogdanov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 March 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. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and/or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. 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 11 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.
7. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009).
8. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. Some 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. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.
12. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations violations of the Convention and its Protocol in the light of its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Kalyapin v. Russia, no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, concerning different aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, related to examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO); and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 178-91, 10 April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal and immediate execution of a sentence of administrative detention).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. Some of the applicants further raised additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative offence proceedings. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
14. In applications nos. 13238/20, 24896/20, 26610/20 and 27289/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
15. The Court has examined these 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.
16. 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 CONVENTION17. 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.”
18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Article 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of applications nos. 13238/20, 24896/20, 26610/20 and 27289/20 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the public assembly;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto 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;
Dismisses the reminder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the public event
Location
Date
Administrative charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
2984/20
11/12/2019
Vasiliy Borisovich BOGDANOV
1990
Savelyev Anton Alekseyevich
Domodedovo
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty- arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 (two consecutive administrative arrest records of 27/07 and 28/07/2019) as administrative suspect “for a timely and correct examination of the case”: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under the CAO, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 12/09/2019
4,000
9278/20
31/01/2020
Aleksandr Alekseyevich KUKIN
1992
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 7 days
Moscow City Court
01/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no evidence/ assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period (the administrative offence record compiled on 29/07/2019);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
01/08/2019;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 30/07/2019 by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
11628/20
05/02/2020
Anton Igorevich CHAPARIN
1995
Balog Natalya Andreyevna
Krasnoyarsk
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 5 days
Moscow City Court
06/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 27/07/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 06/08/2019;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance on 29/07/2019 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
13001/20
27/02/2020
Andrey Mikhaylovich MALYKH
1989
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for a “full and correct consideration of the case”, beyond a beyond the three-hour statutory period and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019, in the absence of any “exceptional circumstances”;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court on 30/08/2019
4,000
13234/20
21/02/2020
Aleksey Orionovich IVANOV
1990
Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
04/10/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
04/10/2019
3,500
13236/20
21/02/2020
Irina Alekseyevna ASHEVSKAYA
1968
Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
06/11/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
06/11/2019
3,500
13238/20
21/02/2020
Maksim Timurovich CHUNGULBAYEV
1995
Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 18,000
Moscow City Court
04/10/2019
3,500
14310/20
22/01/2020
Viktor Anatolyevich SHENDEROVICH
1958
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
04/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 8.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 and 4.30 a.m. on 28/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, no evidence/assessment of any “exceptional circumstances”;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
04/09/2019
4,000
24893/20
22/06/2020
Aleksey Vladimirovich UCHAYEV
1992
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Tverskaya str., Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
26/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence - no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on 26/09/2019
4,000
24896/20
22/06/2020
Olga Stanislavovna VINOGRADOVA
1959
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Strastnoy boulevard, Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/09/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
24/09/2019
3,500
24902/20
22/06/2020
Artem Andreyevich PYLAYEV
1976
Lawyers of former Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
04/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - unlawful arrest, escorting and detention from 27/07/2019 to 29/07/2019 at the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an administrative-offence record, without any “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
04/10/2019
4,000
25001/20
27/02/2020
Anastasiya Dmitriyevna MARINA
1997
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, detention from 27/07/2019 to 29/07/2019 at the police station as an administrative suspect for a “full and correct examination of the case”, without any “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
30/08/2019
4,000
25008/20
27/02/2020
Pavel Nikolayevich KOSTENKO
1988
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting and detention from 27/07/2019 to 29/07/2019 at the police station as an administrative suspect for drawing up of the administrative offence record, without any “exceptional circumstances”; the applicant remained in detention after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
30/08/2019
4,000
25980/20
23/03/2020
Balaram Dmitriyevich USOV
1999
Zamyatin Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich
Berlin
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
26/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police office for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 27/07/2019: no evidence / assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
26/09/2019
4,000
26052/20
25/03/2020
Nikolay Andreyevich ANSHOV
2000
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
14/10/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
14/10/2019
3,500
26311/20
25/03/2020
Maksim Vladimirovich VOLKOV
1981
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
26/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 2.17 p.m. and 6.50 p.m. on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
26/09/2019
4,000
26610/20
05/06/2020
Sergey Vladimirovich AFONIN
1984
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
24/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence - no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO
4,000
26860/20
16/04/2020
Artem Vladimirovich ILYUKHIN
1999
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow, Bolshaya Dmitrovka street
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
16/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court
on 16/10/2019
4,000
27289/20
11/06/2020
Dmitriy Vladimirovich GILEV
1994
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
28/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence - no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO
4,000
27714/20
25/03/2020
Levon Arturovich GRIGORYAN
1993
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
16/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record had been compiled on 28/07/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court on
16/10/2019
4,000
27746/20
18/06/2020
Semen Vladimirovich KOLOSOV
1991
Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
04/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, detention; in excess of three hours
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
04/10/2019
4,000
27753/20
18/06/2020
Vladimir Pavlovich BELYKH
1982
Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
26/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no evidence /assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record was compiled at 10 p.m. on 27/07/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court
26/11/2019
4,000
28560/20
09/06/2020
Dzhabir Ibragimovich IBRAGIMOV
1970
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
14/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; no evidence /assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record was compiled on 27/07/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
14/10/2019
4,000
28563/20
09/06/2020
Arlen Remziyevich BEKIROV
1996
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2919
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
08/11/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no evidence /assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record was compiled at 10 p.m. on 27/07/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
08/11/2019
4,000
28565/20
09/06/2020
Anton Sergeyevich TIMOFEYEV
1987
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Moscow City Court
14/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and detention between 27/07/2019 and 29/07/2019 as administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; no evidence/ assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period, and after the administrative offence record was compiled on 27/07/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court on
14/10/2019
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.