THIRD SECTION
CASE OF LAKHATKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 56926/18 and 18 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lakhatkin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 December 2022,
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 cases are set out in the appended table.
4. On the different dates, the applicants were taken to the police stations as administrative suspects of the offences related to public events. They were subsequently administratively convicted for participation in different public events.
5. The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6. 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 5 § 1 of the Convention7. The applicants complained that the administrative escorting and arrest procedures and their ensuing detention had been in contravention of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (...):
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (...)”
8. The Court has previously examined complaints brought by persons arrested and detained in similar circumstances in Russia. Having examined the applicable domestic regulations, the Court established that, under the Russian law, the escorting to a police station and ensuing detention there for the purpose of preparing an administrative arrest record would be permissible only if such record could not be drawn up at the place where the alleged offence had been discovered. The law also required that such escorting and detention be an “exceptional case” and necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative case or to secure the enforcement of any penalty to be imposed (see, for example, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 71, 15 November 2018), and that the use of the escort measure be properly documented (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017, and Kalyapin v. Russia, no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019). The authorities’ failure to comply with those requirements, in the Court’s view, led to it finding a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, Kalyapin, cited above, §§ 76-79, and Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
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. It discerns nothing in the official records submitted to it to conclude that recourse to such procedures was justified, as required by the Russian law. In particular, the applicants were taken to the police station as administrative suspects, whereas there was no evidence or assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the Code of Administrative Offences, that is to establish the suspects’ identity (see Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 34-36). It concludes that the national authorities failed to comply with the applicable rules of domestic procedure and considers that the applicants’ escorting, arrest and detention were not “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention (see appended table), given the relevant
well-established case-law of the Court.
12. 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 Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Code of Administrative Offences, Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations, Kasparov and Others v. Russia no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013 and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of public assemblies).
13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings and alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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.”
15. 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, and, as a recent example, Akhtyamov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 17105/18 and 8 others, §§ 15-16, 10 October 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award to each of the applicants 3,900 euros (EUR) in just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;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 as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);Holds that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the proceedings and alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses; Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay to each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 3,900 (three thousand and nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, 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 12 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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
Start and end of unlawful detention;
other specific defects with the applicable case-law
Public event
Final domestic decision
Other complaints under well-established case-law
56926/18
16/11/2018
Maksim Vladimirovich LAKHATKIN
1995
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
From 2.20 p.m. to 5.10 p.m. on 07/01/2018.
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).
A record of administrative arrest was compiled indicating that the measure had been necessary in order to ensure “the correct and expedient examination of the case”.
No escorting record was compiled, but escorting was mentioned in the administrative arrest record.
On 07/01/2018, the applicant, with several other persons, gave leaflets and toy balloons in support to Mr A. Navalny near a metro station in Moscow.
Moscow City Court, 08/06/2018.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of peaceful public assemblies (Kasparov and Others v. Russia no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016).
8396/19
31/01/2019
Igor Igorevich TELPUKHOVSKIY
1997
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
From 4.40 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 12/06/2017.
Absence of any records formalising the applicant’s deprivation of liberty (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017).
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).
Anticorruption manifestation in Moscow on 12/06/2017.
Moscow City Court, 20/08/2018.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of peaceful public assemblies (Kasparov and Others v. Russia no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016).
9017/19
31/01/2019
Yegor Aleksandrovich SAVKIN
2000
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
From 5.00 p.m. on 09/09/2018 to at least 3.00 a.m. on 10/09/2018.
A record of administrative escort was compiled indicating that the measure had been necessary in order to ensure “the expedient and correct examination of the case”.
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 (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Manifestation against the pension reform in St Petersburg on 09/09/2018.
St Petersburg City Court, 09/10/2018.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of peaceful public assemblies (Kasparov and Others v. Russia no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016).
12717/19
26/02/2019
Ilya Sergeyevich KUNAKH
1990
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
On 09/09/2018 (exact time is unclear).
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)
Manifestation against the pension reform in St Petersburg on 09/09/2018.
St Petersburg City Court, 11/10/2018.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of peaceful public assemblies (Kasparov and Others v. Russia no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016).
5.
12154/20
27/02/2020
Dmitriy Petrovich DONSKOV
1982
Memorial Human Rights Centre
From 1.40 p.m. to 10.55 p.m. on 12/06/2019.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Absence of any records formalising the applicant’s deprivation of liberty (see Timishev, cited above, § 21).
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).
Manifestation in support of Mr Ivan Golunov in Moscow on 12/06/2019.
Moscow City Court, 28/08/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of peaceful public assemblies (Kasparov and Others v. Russia no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016).
6.
14217/20
05/03/2020
Andrey Vasilyevich STATOV
1983
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
From 5.45 p.m. on 03/08/2019 (no exact end time).
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).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 06/09/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of peaceful public assemblies (Kasparov and Others v. Russia no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016).
7.
14536/20
29/02/2020
Kirill Feliksovich VODINSKIY
1981
Molokanova Tatyana Valeryevna
From 2.30 p.m. to 11.15 p.m. on 03/08/2019.
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 (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 30/08/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence case (see Karelin v. Russia, cited above, §§ 69-84).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
8.
14538/20
29/02/2020
Anatoliy Sergeyevich KOKOREV
1987
Molokanova Tatyana Valeryevna
From 2.30 p.m. to 11.15 p.m. on 03/08/2019.
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 (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 30/08/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence case (see Karelin v. Russia, cited above, §§ 69-84).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
9.
14540/20
29/02/2020
Arkadiy Yuryevich DUBNOV
1949
Molokanova Tatyana Valeryevna
From 2.30 p.m. to 10.50 p.m. on 03/08/2019.
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 (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 30/08/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence case (see Karelin v. Russia, cited above, §§ 69-84).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
10.
14716/20
10/03/2020
and
45136/20
17/09/2020
Anna Yevgenyevna LOYKO
1999
Timakova Kristina Igorevna
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
From 7.50 p.m. on 14/07/2019 to 2.20 a.m. on 15/07/2019.
Then from 2.50 p.m. on 03/08/2019 (no exact end time).
Then from 15/07/2020 to 16/07/2020 (exact time is unclear).
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 (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Detention as an administrative suspect after the offence record had been compiled, until the hearing before the first instance court (see Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 149-52, 5 January 2016, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019).
Two manifestations for fair elections in Mosgorduma in Moscow on 14/07/2019 and 03/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, on 18/09/2019 and 10/09/2019 respectively.
Manifestation against amendments to the Russian Constitution in Moscow constitution on 15/07/2020.
Moscow City Court, 22/07/2020.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence cases (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
11.
15047/20
12/03/2020
Yakov Borisovich LETUCHIY
1987
Molokanova Tatyana Valeryevna
From 2.30 p.m. to 10.50 p.m. on 03/08/2019.
Absence of any records formalising the applicant’s deprivation of liberty (see Timishev v. Russia, cited above, § 21).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 12/09/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence cases (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
12.
15074/20
12/03/2020
Mikhail Mikhaylovich BOROSH
1987
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
From 3.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 00.05 a.m. on 04/08/2019.
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 (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence cases (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
13.
15975/20
16/03/2020
Daniel Igorevich ABRAMOV
1995
From 4.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 03/08/2019.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Absence of any records formalising the applicant’s deprivation of liberty (see Timishev, cited above, § 21).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 16/09/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence cases (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
14.
16328/20
15/03/2020
Dmitriy Andreyevich BONDAR
1990
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
From 6.30 p.m. 10/08/2019 (no exact end time).
Escorting in order to draw “administrative case-file”, while administrative offence record had been compiled in the police van on the spot (Frumkin, cited above, §§ 149-52, and Korneyeva, cited above, § 35).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 10/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 16/09/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence cases (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
15.
16330/20
15/03/2020
Andrey Sergeyevich TRAKHANOV
1967
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
From 7.00. p.m. 10/08/2019 (no exact end time, at least 10.00 p.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 (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 10/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 18/09/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence cases (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
16.
16331/20
15/03/2020
Roman Alekseyevich ARKUSOV
1991
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
From 6.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 10/08/2019.
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 (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 10/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 18/09/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence cases (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin, cited above, §§ 102-42).
17.
17656/20
25/03/2020
Maksim Sergeyevich GUSTOV
1998
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
From 3.20. p.m. on 10/08/2019
(no exact time, at least until 8.20. p.m.).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Solo static demonstration for fair elections in St Petersburg on 10/08/2019.
St Petersburg City Court, 26/09/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence cases (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016).
Art. 10 (2) - disproportionate interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 Others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016).
18.
17805/20
27/03/2020
Ivan Vladimirovich IVANOV
1989
Balog Natalya Andreyevna
From 3.50 to 10.15 p.m. on 03/08/2019.
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 121-22).
Absence of any records formalising the applicant’s deprivation of liberty (see Timishev v. Russia, cited above, § 21).
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019.
Moscow City Court, 10/10/2019.
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence case (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).
Art. 11 (2) -disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, §§ 84-97, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 102-42, 5 January 2016).