FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MILKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 3316/19 and 46 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 June 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Milkova 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 17 May 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of country-wide protests against retirement age hike organised by Aleksey Navalnyy on 9 September 2018. 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 11 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.
8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009).
9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.
13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in 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; and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”).
remaining complaints14. Some applicants also raised other further additional complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
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. 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 CONVENTION16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;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(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 8 June 2023, 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 11 of the Convention
(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Location of the public event
Administrative charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
3316/19
29/12/2018
Olga Alekseyevna MILKOVA
1965
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
07/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
5827/19
29/12/2018
Igor Vasilyevich MILKOV
1965
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
09/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6005/19
25/12/2018
Svetlana Ivanovna YEFIMOVICH
1940
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
10/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6009/19
25/12/2018
Yuriy Sergeyevich SITNIKOV
1995
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
25/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6014/19
25/12/2018
Viktor Viktorovich PARSHUKOV
1984
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
25/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6017/19
25/12/2018
Yevgeniy Igorevich ZUBOV
1997
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
10/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6030/19
25/12/2018
Anastasiya Sergeyevna GRIGORYEVA
1993
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
25/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6041/19
26/12/2018
Ruslan Vladimirovich KHAFIZOV
1988
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
01/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6044/19
26/12/2018
Aleksey Nikolayevich BRYANTSEV
1979
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
25/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6687/19
21/01/2019
Vladimir Ivanovich CHERNYSHEV
1966
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Belgorod
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention for 20 days
Belgorod Regional Court
19/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative offence report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
7465/19
23/01/2019
Yevgeniy Levonovich BAGDASAROV
1988
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7469/19
22/01/2019
Yevgeniy Vladislavovich LAZUTIN
1993
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7473/19
22/01/2019
Maksim Vladimirovich VILENSKIY
1987
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7476/19
22/01/2019
Maksim Yevgenyevich PESHKOV
1985
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7479/19
22/01/2019
Aleksey Nikolayevich VASILENKO
1959
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7482/19
22/01/2019
Lyudmila Anatolyevna BORISENKO
1965
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7484/19
22/01/2019
Sergey Nikolayevich BORISENKO
1964
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7488/19
22/01/2019
Olga Aleksandrovna GERASYUK
1993
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7489/19
22/01/2019
Sergey Aleksandrovich MAKSIMENKO
1984
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7490/19
22/01/2019
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich ROMANOV
1996
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
7492/19
22/01/2019
Alla Pavlovna MOROZOVA
1965
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Stavropol
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Stavropol Regional Court
24/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
13467/19
12/02/2019
Aleksandra Dmitriyevna LUKYANENKO
1997
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
04/10/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 5.15 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 12.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018, released at 8.35 a.m. on 11/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
13635/19
13/02/2019
Polina Yuryevna MIKHAYLOVA
1995
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
08/11/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 5.15 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.25 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 2.45 p.m. on 11/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
13814/19
01/03/2019
Tatyana Nikolayevna ZAYTSEVA
1986
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Omsk
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of
RUB 25,000
Omsk Regional Court
30/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
15103/19
12/02/2019
Aleksandr Yuryevich SERGEYEV
1999
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
08/11/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 4 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 5.25 a.m. on 10/09/2018, released at 2.45 p.m. on 11/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
17456/19
14/03/2019
Mariya Aleksandrovna LAKHINA
1996
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
25/10/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 4.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 12.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018, released at 8.30 a.m. on 11/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
18775/19
19/03/2019
Andrey Aleksandrovich MANICHENKO
1956
Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 75,000
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
18/10/2018 (amended by the decision of the Deputy President of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 26/02/2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
20463/19
26/03/2019
Denis Alekseyevich KRAVCHENKO
1997
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Ulan-Ude
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic
22/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
22087/19
12/04/2019
Andrey Vladimirovich NEKURYASHCHIKH
1966
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Omsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Omsk Regional Court
11/12/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 3.30 p.m. and brought to the police station at 4.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 2 p.m. on 10/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
22689/19
12/04/2019
Alla Vladimirovna KUZNETSOVA
1967
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Ulan-Ude
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of Buryatia Republic
12/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
24633/19
09/04/2019
Mikhail Filippovich NIKANOROV
1997
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for
7 days
St Petersburg City Court
11/10/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 6.15 p.m. and brought to the police station at 7.36 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 10.39 a.m. on 10/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
24652/19
09/04/2019
Denis Sergeyevich GUZHAVIN
1985
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
detention for
5 days
St Petersburg City Court
11/10/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 6.15 p.m. and brought to the police station at 7.36 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 10.42 a.m. on 10/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
28932/19
13/05/2019
Pavel Sergeyevich PUSHECHNIKOV
1992
Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
detention for
13 days
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
14/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
28976/19
13/05/2019
Roman Vladimirovich BOLSHAKOV
1992
Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
detention for
12 days
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
14/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
29623/19
22/05/2019
Irina Olegovna PRISEKINA
1961
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
04/12/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report and detention in excess of 3 hours (brought to the police station at 5.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018 and released at 1.53 a.m. on 10/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
29876/19
08/05/2019
Egor Igorevich YAROSHEVSKIY
2000
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
13/11/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 6 p.m. on 09/09/2018, brought to the police station at 1.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018, released in the morning on 11/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
32221/19
29/05/2019
Pavel Vitalyevich DAMOV
1971
Balog Natalya Andreyevna
Krasnoyarsk
Krasnoyarsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours of community work
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
06/12/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
32331/19
30/04/2019
Tatyana Aleksandrovna GARAMOVA
1987
Botukh Yuliya Igorevna
Murino
St Petersburg
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
01/11/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 5.57 p.m. and brought to the police station at 8.05 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 8.15 a.m. on 10/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
34115/19
17/06/2019
Aleksey Viktorovich GONYAKOV
1987
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Novosibirsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 12,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
18/12/2018
3,500
34307/19
18/06/2019
Anton Vadimovich VISHNYAKOV
1997
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Novosibirsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
18/12/2018
3,500
35126/19
17/06/2019
Vitaliy Alekseyevich BREKALOV
1993
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Novosibirsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
18/12/2018
3,500
36767/19
24/06/2019
Vladimir Anatolyevich GORBUNOV
1976
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Novosibirsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
25/12/2018
3,500
37102/19
28/06/2019
Dmitriy Mikhaylovich MIRONOV
1995
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
23/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.30 p.m., brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m. and released later in the evening on 09/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
42382/19
14/07/2019
Svetlana Viktorovna KAVERZINA
1995
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Novosibirsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 5,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
15/01/2019
3,500
58204/19
29/10/2019
Andrey Sergeyevich VODOLAZSKIY
1991
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
60 hours of community work
St Petersburg City Court
11/06/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 4 p.m. and brought to the police station at 8.15 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 4.38 p.m. on 10/09/2018);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
5983/20
16/01/2020
Dmitriy Sergeyevich TERESHCHENKO
1993
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Krasnodar
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
16/07/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
6271/20
16/01/2020
Andrey Petrovich KULESHOV
1998
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Krasnodar
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
16/07/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.