FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KUDRYASHOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2606/12 and 29 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kudryashova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 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 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 organisers and 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, which reads as follows:
Article 11
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”
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, 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 of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 61-65, 13 February 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to administrative escorting to and detention in a police station beyond three hours without any justification; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, related to the absence of a prosecuting party in criminal proceedings governed by the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”); Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-91, 10 April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, regarding the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court firstly notes that, in view of its findings in paragraphs 10 and 12 above, it considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings.
15. The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants 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], no. 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;Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;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 23 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
(restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events)
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
Other complaints under
well-established
case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
2606/12
21/12/2011
Nadezhda Nikolayevna KUDRYASHOVA
1957
Picket in defence of children’s rights
Barnaul
16/03/2011
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 1,000
Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Barnaul
23/06/2011
3,500
58416/12
16/08/2012
Nikolay Nikolayevich DIDYUK
1956
Mikhail Mikhaylovich STETSENKO
1990
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Picket near the regional prosecutor’s office
18/10/2011
(Mr Didyuk)
20/10/2011 (Mr Stetsenko)
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 500
administrative fine of RUB 500
Syktyvkar Town Court
16/02/2012
Syktyvkar Town Court
20/02/2012
3,500
60753/12
03/09/2012
Oleg Vasilyevich SHEIN
1972
March in defence of human rights
Astrakhan
12/06/2012
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 20,000
Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan 18/07/2012
3,500
35006/13
20/05/2013
Kseniya Vladimirovna ZHIKHAREVA
1983
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Picket in support of Belorussian photographers
Moscow
05/12/2012
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Basmannyy District Court of Moscow 11/03/2013
3,500
35026/13
20/05/2013
Fedor Andreyevich YEZEYEV
1977
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Opposition manifestation
Moscow
15/12/2012
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow Regional Court
14/03/2013
3,500
35037/13
26/04/2013
Aleksandr Viktorovich SAMSONOV
1988
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Picket in support of prisoners’ rights
Samara
30/10/2012
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Promyshlennyy District Court of Samara
15/01/2013
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2§ 5 of CAO
3,500
68982/14
10/10/2014
Sergey Vladimirovich SOROKIN
1958
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Manifestation against the annexation of Crimea
Syktyvkar
16/03/2014
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 04/06/2014
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
3,500
23054/17
16/03/2017
Tatyana Aleksandrovna MIKHAYLOVA
1954
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Spontaneous assembly against violation of environmental legislation
Moscow
14/06/2016
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 1,000
Moscow City Court 14/11/2016
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis - arrest and detention of the applicant at the police station on 14/06/2016 between 1.30 p.m. and
5 p.m.
4,000
39263/17
26/05/2017
Aleksey Viktorovich TABALOV
1976
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Demonstration against corruption
Chelyabinsk
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Chelyabinsk Regional Court 11/04/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO;
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
40037/17
25/05/2017
Sergey Trofimovich MARYIN
1955
Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich
Melekhovo
Demonstration against corruption
Saransk
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 20,000
Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic 02/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4.05 p.m. on 26/03/2017 to 8.30 a.m. on 27/03/2017 with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO.
5,000
54016/17
17/07/2017
Ilyas Rashadovich ABBASOV
1994
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
25/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
63765/17
18/08/2017
Muradin Murdinovich ZHANE
1993
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Demonstration against corruption
Krasnodar
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Krasnodar Regional Court
06/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 at 3.10 p.m. for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
63817/17
18/08/2017
Dmitriy Vasilyevich KRUCHENYUK
1998
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Demonstration against corruption
Krasnodar
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Krasnodar Regional Court
07/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis - arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4.40 p.m. to
8.40 p.m. with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal –
the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
70000/17
07/09/2017
and
62596/19
19/11/2019
Timofey Borisovich FILATOV
1989
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Demonstration against corruption
Magnitogorsk
26/03/2017
Manifestation against construction of the cathedral
Yekaterinburg
16/05/2019
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
community service of
24 hours
administrative detention of 15 days
Chelyabinsk Regional Court 28/06/2017
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
21/05/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: under Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO and Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal –
the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court on 16/05/2019 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
70385/17
07/09/2017
Artur Aleksandrovich DAVYDENKO
1992
Navalnyy Aleksey Anatolyevich
Melekhovo
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court 28/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – arrest and escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention from 4.40 p.m. to 8.40 p.m. with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
70392/17
07/09/2017
Nikita Vladimirovich STASYUK
1998
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Vladivostok
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
04/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
70456/17
07/09/2017
Mariya Aleksandrovna ZARUDNYAYA
1996
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court 11/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 4 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
70523/17
07/09/2017
Lyubov Aleksandrovna ZARUDNYAYA
1998
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court 10/05/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 4 p.m. to 7.44 p.m. with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
71070/17
18/09/2017
Ravil Shamilevich SHIGAYEV
1997
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Demonstration against corruption
Krasnodar
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Krasnodar Regional Court
06/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 2.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
71120/17
18/09/2017
Andrey Vladimirovich CHUPYSHEV
1991
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
Demonstration against corruption
Krasnodar
26/03/2017
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 15 days
Krasnodar Regional Court
06/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station at 6 p.m. on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO.
5,000
73801/17
07/09/2017
Maksim Aleksandrovich NAZARENKO
1985
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
26/04/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station at 4 p.m. on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record, detention in the police station from was detained from
4 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. without any justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
75249/17
19/10/2017
Mikhail Olegovich IZOTKIN
1996
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court 25/04/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
75327/17
19/10/2017
Dmitriy Vladimirovich RUDNEV
1995
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
25/04/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
75523/17
19/10/2017
Kirill Yuryevich MELESHKO
1994
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court 26/04/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
78273/17
03/11/2017
Igor Alekseyevich IVANOV
1992
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
02/05/2017 (decision received on 15/05/2017)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
79125/17
01/11/2017
Maksim Anatolyevich FEDOROV
1968
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Social march
Samara
23/04/2017
Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 30,000
Samara Regional Court
22/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO.
3,500
83359/17
04/12/2017
Georgiy Aleksandrovich SPIRIN
1990
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Gatchina
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 5,000
Leningrad Regional Court
05/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
83408/17
07/12/2017
Dmitriy Yuryevich YURCHENKO
2000
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Demonstration against corruption
Volgograd
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd 07/06/2017
(appeal court because the applicant was a minor)
3,500
3954/18
27/12/2017
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PROKOPENKO
1988
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Demonstration against corruption
St Petersburg
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
30/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal
basis – escorting to the police station on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up the administrative offence record; detention at the police station from 6.10 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.