FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BIREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 28538/21 and 21 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 January 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Birev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 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 or participants of public assemblies. They 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.
JURISDICTION6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.
8. 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).
9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.
13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement of applicants in a metal cage in courtrooms ; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 489, 7 February 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraph 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants under the Convention;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);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 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
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 (code of administrative proceedings, CAO)
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros)[1]
28538/21
02/06/2021
Nikolay Valeryevich BIREV
1985
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.22 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021,
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, 30/03/2021.
4,000
31672/21
07/06/2021
Roman Igorevich MAKSIMOV
1995
Rally against rise of public transport ticket price
St Petersburg
10/11/2019
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Velikiy Novgorod
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
administrative detention of 8 days
St Petersburg City Court
08/12/2020
Novgorod Regional Court
04/02/2021
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement of the applicant in a metal cage during the hearing before the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow on 11/05/2022,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”:
- from 2.30 p.m. on 29/01/2021 to 10.50 a.m. on 31/01/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
- from 4.00 p.m. on 29/04/2021 to 01/05/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: St Petersburg City Court, 08/12/2020, and Novgorod Regional Court, 04/02/2021 and 06/05/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls, on 20/04/2021, on internet, for support of Mr A. Navalnyy scheduled for 21/04/2021 in Velikiy Novgorod, conviction under art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, 15 days of administrative detention. Final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 06/05/2021.
9,750
32173/21
11/06/2021
Aleksey Georgiyevich ZAYTSEV
1982
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
16/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.50 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 9.30 a.m. on 01/02/2021; the applicant spent more than 5 hours in the police van,
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, 16/03/2021
5,000
35193/21
18/06/2021
Aleksey Aleksandrovich STEPANOV
2002
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
17/01/2021
Rally against the war in Ukraine
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
administrative detention of 10 days
Moscow City Court
14/04/2021
Moscow City Court
04/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”:
- from 7.45 p.m. on 17/01/2021 to 2.30 a.m. on 18/01/2021, while the said record had been drawn only on 27/01/2021,
- from 7.50 p.m. on 24/02/2022 to 4.55 p.m. on 25/02/2023, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 14/04/2021 and 04/03/2022,
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 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
36381/21
30/06/2021
Aleksandr Viktorovich SHAPOVALOV
1978
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
21/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.30 a.m. to 5.15 p.m. on 02/02/2021,
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, 21/05/2021.
4,000
36397/21
25/06/2021
(3 applicants)
1) Pavel Pavlovich BORODETSKIY
1981
2) Andrey Mikhaylovich IVASHEV
1991
3) Dmitriy Vladimirovich KUDASHEV
1977
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Syktyvkar
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
for each applicant
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 31/03/2021, 17/03/2021 and
24/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, on 31/01/2021:
- from 1.30 p.m. to 09.00 p.m. (1st applicant),
- from 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. (2nd applicant),
- from 1.25 p.m. to 9.35 p.m. (3rd applicant),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 31/03/2021, 17/03/2021 and 24/03/2021.
4,000,
to each applicant
36431/21
30/06/2021
Oleg Aleksandrovich VTOROY
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 9 days
Moscow City Court
04/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.45 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 2.00 p.m. on 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/02/2021,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 03/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
36452/21
30/06/2021
Aleksandr Vasylovich AYUPOV
1983
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 2 days
Moscow City Court
04/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.40 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 2.00 p.m. on 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/02/2021,
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.
5,000
36455/21
30/06/2021
Ivar Askarovich TUGANBAYEV
2000
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 7 days
Moscow City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances, from 11.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 2.20 p.m. on 04/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case; the applicant spent 2h 10 in the police van; he was not released after the 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, 30/03/2021,
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.
5,000
36755/21
13/07/2021
Danil Andreyevich MATVEYEV
2002
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Velikiy Novgorod
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
community works of 20 hours
Novgorod Regional Court
04/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.50 p.m. to 9.20 p.m. on 23/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 04/03/2021.
5,000
36887/21
05/07/2021
Nikolay Sergeyevich ANDRIYUK
1986
Zatonskaya Yuliya Vladimirovna
Lipetsk
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Lipetsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Lipetsk Regional Court
25/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 25/02/2021.
4,000
36925/21
05/07/2021
Igor Anatolyevich ZHULIMOV
1962
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Penza
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Penza Regional Court
17/06/2021
4,000
36938/21
16/07/2021
Danila Alekseyevich KLYUYEV
2000
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.37 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 00.10 a.m. on 24/01/2021; the applicant spent more than 5 hours in the police van,
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, 30/03/2021.
4,000
36980/21
16/07/2021
Omar Igorevich KHARCHILAVA
2000
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Rostov-on-Don
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Rostov Regional Court
07/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 2.00 p.m. 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 07/04/2021
4,000
36995/21
16/07/2021
Anton Aleksanrovich BUYDALIN
1987
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 7 days
Moscow City Court
18/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.15 a.m. on 31/01/2021 to 8.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case; the applicant spent 3 hours in the police van,
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, 18/02/2021,
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 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
37668/21
27/06/2021
Daniel Edmundo VERDUGO NOSOV
1992
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
24/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021, while the said record was drawn up only on 26/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 24/03/2021.
4,000
37845/21
09/07/2021
Nikita Ruslanovich STARCHENKOV
1992
Antokhin Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 5 days
Moscow City Court
10/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 02/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/03/2021,
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.
5,000
37871/21
13/07/2021
Aleksey Yanovich KLIMOVICH
1992
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 14 days
Moscow City Court
12/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from on 3.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021.
5,000
38171/21
16/07/2021
Oleg Leonidovich KONONENKO
1993
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Vladivostok
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
community works of 30 hours
Primorye Regional Court
27/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.30 p.m. to 7.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 27/04/2021
4,000
38193/21
14/07/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZAKHAROV
1990
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 15 days
Moscow City Court
03/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.15 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/02/2021,
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
5,000
38868/21
18/07/2021
Yefim Nikolayevich TARASENKO
1992
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Moscow City Court
06/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 11.40 p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
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, 06/04/2021
5,000
38924/21
22/07/2021
Anton Yevgenyevich METAKOVSKIY
1992
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of Mr A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 13 days
Moscow City Court
09/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 1.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 1.15 p.m. on 01/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,
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, 09/02/2021,
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.
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.