CASE OF KARGASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF KARGASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 4815/18 and 21 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 January 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kargashin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 María Elósegui, President,
 Mattias Guyomar,
 Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.Jurisdiction

6.  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 5 § 1 of the Convention

7.  The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

8.  The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III).

9.  In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91‑96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, 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 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12.  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. 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, among other numerous authorities, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 179-91, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38‑42, 8 October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of an administrative detention; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 74-90, 30 April 2019, concerning conviction for an administrative offence for calling on the public to participate in an unauthorised public event; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, regarding disproportionate measure taken against participants in solo manifestations; and S.M. v. Russia, no. 75863/11, 22 October 2015, concerning the State’s obligation to investigate cases of sexual abuse).

13.  In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the proceedings and the alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  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), 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 applications admissible;Holds that these applications 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 and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);Holds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the remaining applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the proceedings and the alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses; 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 11 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
 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 date of unauthorised detention

End date of unauthorised detention

Specific defects

Other complaints under well‑established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros)[1]   

4815/18

19/01/2018

Dmitriy Vladimirovich KARGASHIN

1989

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

26/03/2017,

4.50 p.m.

27/03/2017, 1.30 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 20/07/2017, fine of RUB 10,000

4,000   

6553/18

24/01/2018

Igor Nikolayevich TYMCHUK

1964

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

26/03/2017

27/03/2017

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 24/07/2017, fine of RUB 15,000

4,000   

9367/18

16/02/2018

Pavel Vladimirovich BOSENKO

1996

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

26/03/2017,

4.07 p.m.

27/03/2017,

1 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/09/2017, fine of RUB 20,000

4,000   

12053/18

03/03/2018

Aleksey Andreyevich KHARITONOV

1990

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

26/03/2017

26/03/2017

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/09/2017, fine of RUB 20,000

4,000   

42476/18

20/08/2018

Gabriyel Eduardovich ARUTYUNOV

1978

Tretyak Tatyana Aleksandrovna

Gelendzhik

20/07/2018, Supreme Court of the Adygea Republic quashed the applicant’s conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the trial court

14/08/2018

Authorities’ failure to specify the period of pre-trial detention (see Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, §§ 35-39, 17 June 2010)

3,000   

2555/19

29/12/2018

Sergey Gennadyevich VORONOV

1969

Agagyulyan Ani Mesropovna

Moscow

17/08/2018, 12.45 a.m.

17/08/2018, 10.33 a.m.

Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

3,000   

10336/20

04/02/2020

Anna Viktorovna KITAYEVA

1985

Belova Yekaterina Borisovna

Moscow

13/11/2018

13/11/2018

The final decision on the matter was taken by the Vladimir Regional Court on 05/08/2019.

Forced attendance without evidence of proper summons to appear or of failure by the applicant to comply without a valid excuse (see Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017)

Art. 3 - Ineffective investigation of the rape and assault of the applicant which took place on 28/04/2016. On 15/06/2016 the applicant reported the crimes. The criminal investigation was opened on 28/08/2018. It was subsequently discontinued for lack of corpus delicti (rape) and as time-barred (assault). The latest decision on the matter was taken by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir on 09/12/2021 refusal to restore the time-limit for appeal.

15,500   

13493/21

15/02/2021

Ilnur Mingaliyevich KABIROV

1987

Kabirov Rushan Rafisovich

Kazan

05/10/2020

05/10/2020

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

3,000   

31403/21

21/05/2021

Andrey Sergeyevich YAKOVLEV

1976

Soroka Kseniya Andreyevna

Moscow

13/12/2020

25/12/2020

Lack of legal basis for detention owing to the higher court’s omission to extend the applicant’s detention following the quashing of the first-instance court detention order or a conviction/appeal decision on conviction (see Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011), Breach of Code of Criminal Procedure in applying detention

3,000 

35893/21

01/07/2021

Vladlen Kornelevich LOS

1990

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich

Vilnius

21/01/2021

22/01/2021

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 12/02/2021, 3 days’ administrative detention

4,000 

40516/21

25/07/2021

Mansur Idrisovich GILMANOV

1990

Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich

St Petersburg

21/01/2021,

6.55 p.m.

22/01/2021

Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 26/01/2021, 5 days’ administrative detention,

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The applicant started serving his sentence – administrative arrest – before the appeal judgment was delivered

4,000 

40670/21

25/07/2021

Aliya Ramilevna ILYASOVA

1991

Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna

St Petersburg

23/01/2021

24/01/2021

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 04/02/2021, fine of RUB 10,000

4,000 

47438/21

11/09/2021

Aleksey Vladimirovich SOLOVYEV

1982

Kabirov Rushan Rafisovich

Kazan

08/05/2021,

3 p.m.

09/05/2021,

3 a.m.

Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017); Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

3,000 

49278/21

18/09/2021

Dmitriy Nikolayevich PANIN

1994

Levenberg Yeva Viktorovna

Moscow

31/01/2021

01/02/2021

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 18/03/2021, 10 days’ administrative detention

4,000 

53222/21

05/10/2021

Polina Igorevna RADETSKAYA

2002

Abgadzhava Leonid Alkhasovich

Moscow

31/01/2021

31/01/2021

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – decision on 06/04/2021 by the Moscow City Court, 3 days’ administrative detention

4,000 

54888/21

14/10/2021

Vladimir Ivanovich TOLCHENNIKOV

1987

Sergey Dmitriyevich BELIKOV

1987

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich

Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou

23/01/2021

23/01/2021

Applicants taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on 14/04/2021

3,000,

to each of the applicants 

60627/21

04/12/2021

Yuriy Vladimirovich PEREPECHAY

1988

Bityutskiy Andrey Albertovich

Khabarovsk

05/09/2019

06/09/2019

(The final decision on the matter was taken by the Khabarovsk Regional Court on 06/07/2021)

Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)

3,000 

35612/22

29/06/2022

Vladislav Aleksandrovich NEZNAMOV

1997

Levchenko Aleksey Alekseyevich

Rostov-on-Don

06/04/2022,

3.20 p.m.

07/04/2022,

10.00 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - 06/04/2022, at. 5.20 p.m.; Pushkinskaya street, Rostov-on-Don; solo picket against the war in Ukraine (holding a banner with the text "No war! Do not trust propaganda").

Administrative charges and penalty: Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO (refusal to present an ID upon the police’s request), 10 days’ administrative detention. Final domestic court decision: Rostov Regional Court, 30/05/2022,

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 30/05/2022, 10 days’ administrative detention,

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his sentence – administrative arrest – before the appeal judgment was delivered

5,000 

36737/22

30/06/2022

Nadezhda Viktorovna BOGDANOVA

1993

Levchenko Aleksey Alekseyevich

Rostov-on-Don

06/03/2022

07/03/2022

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 11/03/2022, 15 days’ administrative detention,

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving administrative detention before the court’s decision was considered on appeal and entered into force on 11/03/2022

4,000 

38105/22

14/07/2022

Semen Viktorovich ALEKSIN

1995

Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna

Moscow

06/03/2022

06/03/2022

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Tyumen Regional Court on 20/04/2022, fine of RUB 30,000

4,000 

39022/22

29/07/2022

Valeriya Vladimirovna BUKREYEVA

2001

Gak Irina Vladimirovna

Rostov-on-Don

28/02/2022

01/03/2022

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 29/03/2022, 7 days’ administrative arrest,

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court

4,000 

5377/23

26/01/2023

Emiliya Minibayevna PSHENICHNOVA

1986

Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna

Moscow

12/05/2022,

6.45 p.m.

13/05/2022

Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in unauthorised manifestation published in social network Twitter / 10 days of administrative detention/ the conviction judgment was issued on 13/05/2022,

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 13/05/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO

4,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy