THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GRABETSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 13024/18 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 January 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Grabetskaya and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,
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 against solo demonstrators. 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.
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 10 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention, taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016).
8. In the leading case of Novikova and Others v. Russia (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 432-42, 7 February 2017; Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 50-59, 30 April 2019, and Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023).
9. 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 on 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 expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in 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; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using facial recognition technology in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences, in order to identify, locate and arrest the applicants; Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, § 70, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 123-38, 4 February 2020, concerning various shortcomings related to police searches at the applicants’ premises; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 51-75, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07,§§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; 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 complaints12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), 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;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 10 of the Convention concerning disproportionate measures taken against the applicants as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine the remainder of the applications;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention
(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Location
Date
Purpose of the demonstration
Administrative charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Date
Name of the court
Other relevant information
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
13024/18
28/02/2018
Anna Vadimovna GRABETSKAYA
1986
Mikhaylova Kseniya Andreyevna
St Petersburg
St Petersburg, 12/08/2017, Support of LGBT community
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of
RUB 10,000,
and
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 500
21/09/2017
St Petersburg City Court
and
21/09/2017
St Petersburg City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention:
(i) before 4 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. on 12/08/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence (Art.20.2 § 5 of the CAO) and,
(ii) shortly after her formal release and transfer to a local hospital for a medical examination in connection to acute abdominal pain,
arrest in that hospital on the same date (12/08/2017), escorting to a police station, detention until 14/08/2017 as administrative suspect (Art.19.3 § 1 of the CAO),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – both sets of proceedings
4,000
14324/18
12/03/2018
Tatyana Sergeyevna IVANOVA
1980
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
(i) Syktyvkar, 12/06/2017, Event with a poster "I would like to live, and not to survive, in my Republic"
(ii) Syktyvkar
12/12/2017
Protest against restrictions on picketing in Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar
(iii) Syktyvkar
24/02/2018 Collecting information about life conditions in a local residence for persons awaiting social housing
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000,
(ii) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
community works of 40 hours,
and
article 19.3 of the CAO
administrative fine of
RUB 500,
(iii) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO community works of 50 hours
(i) 13/09/2017, Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
(ii) 23/05/2018
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
and
23/05/2018
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
(iii) 09/01/2019
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
ban on public events at certain locations - in the vicinity of the courts’ buildings (events of 12/06/2017 and 12/12/2017)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 12/12/2017, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; failure to draw up an escort record; (ii) on 31/01/2021, as administrative suspect, beyond the three-hour statutory period, 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 - all sets of administrative proceedings,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - arrest, conviction in two sets of administrative proceedings in respect of participation on 31/01/2021 in Syktyvkar in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy: (i) under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 31/03/2021; and (ii) under article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 700, final judgment by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 26/05/2021
4,000
23194/18
24/04/2018
Yuriy Sergeyevich BOBROV
1982
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Perm, 22/09/2017, Protest against refusal to hold a meeting with Navalnyy
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
24/10/2017, Perm Regional Court
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention:
(i) on 22/09/2017, for the sole purpose of drawing up the offence record, the applicant remained in detention after such record had been compiled;
(ii) between 08/10/2017 and 10/10/2017 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the record of administrative offence had been compiled; and
(iii) between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021, as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the record of administrative offence 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 - three sets of administrative proceedings, final judgments of 24/10/2017, 14/11/2018 and 04/02/2021 by the Perm Regional Court,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events –
(i) arrest on 08/10/2017, conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, fine of RUB 20,000 on account of publishing posts on Vkontakte calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised rally scheduled for, and held on 07/10/2017 in support of A. Navalnyy, final decision: Perm Regional Court, 14/11/2017,
and
(ii) arrest on 31/10/2017, conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, sentence of administrative detention of 5 days, on account of publishing posts on the Perm FBK channel on Telegram calling on the public to participate in a rally scheduled for 31/01/2021 in support of A. Navalnyy (calls discovered by the police on 30/01/2021), final judgment: Perm Regional 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 01/02/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
53698/18
17/10/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PROKOPENKO
1988
St Petersburg, 12/12/2013, Solo picket in support of the Constitutional rights
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
and
article 20.2 § 5
of CAO
no sanction
applied as both sets of proceedings were discontinued
The administrative proceedings in respect of both charges were discontinued by the domestic courts because of the deficiencies in police reports (two sets of decisions, latest: 14/01/2014 and 24/01/2014 by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg).
The applicant’s claim for compensation, lodged in 13/04/2017, was rejected in the final instance by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 06/08/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention –
(i) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 12/12/2013 and 13/12/2013 as administrative suspect. The applicant’s attempt to seek compensation for the unlawful detention in civil proceedings was unsuccessful (final decision: 06/08/2018, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation);
and
(ii) arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 28/10/2018 and 30/10/2018 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled. The domestic courts in the compensation proceedings acknowledged that his detention had been unlawful and awarded him RUB 50,000 (~EUR 549 at the time) of compensation. Final decision: 10/11/2020, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - gathering against abusive criminal prosecution, St Petersburg, 28/10/2018 – arrest during the gathering, conviction under article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO; the first instance court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to administrative fine of RUB 20,000; the appeal instance quashed the conviction and sent the case for a fresh examination; by the final judgment of 05/02/2019 (not appealed against) the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg discontinued the administrative offence proceedings, for the lack of evidence of an administrative offence. The applicant’s subsequent claim for compensation in the part concerning an alleged violation of his Article 11 rights was dismissed by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 10/11/2020
3,500
26458/19
02/05/2019
Anton Ivanovich MIKHEYEV
1997
Makarova Yelena Anatolyevna
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
09/09/2018
Protest against the pension reform
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
10/01/2019
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2534/21
12/12/2020
Amirkhan Albertovich SOFRONOV
2000
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Kazan
30/06/2020
Protest against President Putin
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention
of 10 days
07/07/2020
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled: (i) between 30/06/2020 and 01/07/2020; and (2) between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 pending trial,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - first set of administrative proceedings (final judgment of 07/07/2020),
Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search - a search of the applicant’s residential flat on 06/03/2022, authorised on 05/03/2022 by the Department of Interior - OP No.2 Vishnevskiy of Kazan within a criminal case against unidentified persons concerning knowingly false notification of a terrorist act (the applicant was questioned as a witness). The domestic courts reviewed the investigator’s decision to conduct the search ex post facto and upheld it as lawful (1st instance: 09/03/2022, the applicant was not present/informed); the applicant’s appeal was dismissed in the final instance on 15/04/2022 by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan.
Specific defects: no relevant or sufficient reasons: the applicant was not a suspect; no evidence supporting the search authorisation; no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search; no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant - objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion – not specified in the search order,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – Anti-war rally, Kazan, on 24/02/2022, conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment: Supreme Court of Tatarstan, 13/04/2022,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 01/07/2020, was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
9,000
23432/21
13/04/2021
Sergey Petrovich ZAPOLNOV
2000
Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich
Moscow
Moscow
09/07/2020
Support of arrested protest activists D. Ivanov and E. Yunusov
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
14/10/2020
Moscow City Court
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
61574/21
08/12/2021
Oleg Iskanderovich MAMEDOV
2001
(i) Ufa
17/04/2021
Support of A. Navalnyy
(ii) Ufa, 24/02/2022, Anti-war protest
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 2,000
(ii) article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000,
and
article 19.3 of the CAO
administrative detention
of 4 days
(i) 05/07/2021
Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan,
(ii) 25/04/2022
Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan
and
04/04/2022
Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) between 17/04/2021 and 19/04/2021 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled, and (ii) on 24/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 25/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
1578/22
11/12/2021
Yelena Viktorovna MORGUNOVA
1992
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Moscow
01/11/2020
Support of civil activists
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
07/07/2021 Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 01/11/2020,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,700
28717/22
20/05/2022
Aleksey Vladimirovich CHERNYSHEV
1965
Tyurina Kristina Olegovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
03/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.1 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention
of 7 days
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
13/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station on 03/03/2022, detention there pending trial until 04/03/2023 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
5,000
35623/22
05/07/2022
Mariya Aleksandrovna RYABIKOVA
1974
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Moscow
26/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention
of 30 days
Moscow City Court
05/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 26/02/2022 and 28/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial, 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
6,000
36268/22
30/06/2022
Anastasiya Andreyevna NIKOLAYEVA
1997
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Rostov-on-Don
25/02/2022
Anti-war protest
(with a blank sheet of paper)
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention
of 8 days
Rostov Regional Court
01/03/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 25/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
37026/22
15/07/2022
Galiya Kasimovna SHAMSHETDINOVA
2000
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Saransk
01/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 8 days
18/03/2022
Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention at the police station on 16/03/2022 after an offence report in respect of the event of 01/03/2022 had been compiled, pending the trial hearing held on the same day,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 16/03/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
39474/22
26/07/2022
Yuliya Sergeyevna LYASHOVA
1990
Benyash Mikhail Mikhaylovich
Krasnodar
Krasnodar
27/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
20/04/2022
Krasnodar Regional Court
3,500
39552/22
30/07/2022
Mariya Aleksandrovna SIDORENKO
1989
Krikun Leonid Leonidovich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
08/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 5 days
31/03/2022
St Petersburg City Court
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.15 p.m. on 08/03/2022 until 4.30 p.m. on 09/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
39704/22
05/08/2022
Vitaliy Andreyevich TSITSUROV
1989
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Smolensk, 17/03/2022, Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
community service of
40 hours
27/04/2022
Smolensk Regional Court
distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 17/03/2022 and 19/03/2022 as administrative suspect, 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
4,000
41014/22
30/07/2022
Aleksandr Anatolyevich KATKOV
1983
Moscow
16/10/2021
Support of political prisoners
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
31/03/2022 Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record on 16/10/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
41314/22
08/08/2022
Darya Viktorovna KOSYREVA-SHLYAKHINA
1996
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Ryazan
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention
of 2 days
Ryazan Regional Court, 13/04/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 25/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
43393/22
03/08/2022
Oksana Yevgenyevna KOVENKOVA
1978
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Rostov-on-Don
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
community service of 100 hours
05/04/2022, Rostov Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 24/02/2022 as administrative suspect, after compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
5084/23
13/01/2023
Marta Romanovna DAVYDOVA
1998
Moscow
08/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
15/09/2022
Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 11/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a public event and her subsequent conviction.
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.