THIRD SECTION
CASE OF RECHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 13359/19 and 36 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 May 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rechenko and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 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 and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.
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; 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”); Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 150-59, 18 December 2018, relating to impossibility to question witnesses in a criminal trial (see the appended table).
remaining complaints14. Some applicants also raised other complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning various 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 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 25 May 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
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]
13359/19
25/02/2019
Boris Nikolayevich RECHENKO
1994
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
14/11/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (brought to the police station at 2.15 p.m. and released at 2.50 p.m. 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
14920/19
27/02/2019
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich KUTLENKOV
2000
Mikhaylova Polina Pavlovna
Tyumen
St Petersburg
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
18/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty –
detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 5.45 p.m. and brought to police station at 6.10 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 10.40 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
15637/19
12/03/2019
Anastasiya Ivanovna KADETOVA
(former SEMENOVA)
1998
Vorobyev Viktor Viktorovich
Syktyvkar
Volgograd
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention for 15 days
Volgograd Regional Court
12/09/2018
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 on 09/09/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
20104/19
01/04/2019
Aleksandr Akeksandrovich NALIMOV
1987
Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Vladivostok
Vladivostok
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
17/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
21598/19
01/04/2019
Aleksandra Sergeyevna KORCHAGINA
2000
St Petersburg
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
09/10/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 5.05 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 2.54 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
22606/19
07/04/2019
Sergey Sergeyevich SAVINOV
1989
Belozerov Aleksey Sergeyevich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
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 6.20 p.m. and brought to the police station at 10.50 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 3 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
24398/19
29/04/2019
Yevgeniy Stanislavovich TALANKIN
1991
Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
16/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested and brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 12.02 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
24818/19
20/04/2019
Anton Aleksandrovich ROMANYUK
1982
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
detention for 4 days
St Petersburg City Court
01/11/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 6.05 p.m. and brought to the police station on 09/09/2018, released at 2.30 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.
5,000
29920/19
11/05/2019
Artem Aleksandrovich SAVASTEYEV
1994
Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
20 hours of community work
St Petersburg City Court
18/10/2018
(the applicant was not informed of the final hearing in his case, was not served with a copy of the appeal decision and only learned about the appeal decision on 14/03/2019, as confirmed by the case-file materials)
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 3.20 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.15 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 6.05 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
30078/19
28/05/2019
Yuriy Yuryevich SHAPOSHNIKOV
1987
Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO
detention for 12 days
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
29/11/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
30260/19
21/05/2019
Roman Viktorovich DOLMATOV
1971
Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevcich
Nizhniy Tagil
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
22/11/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.20 p.m., brought to the police station at 8.45 p.m. and released at 11 p.m. 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
31381/19
27/05/2019
Nikita Sergeyevich VELTISHCHEV
1993
Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
40 hours of community work
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
29/11/2018
3,500
31462/19
27/05/2019
Sergey Yuryevich FIGUROV
2000
Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Nizhniy Novgorod
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
60 hours of community work
Nizhniy Novgorod 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
32349/19
29/05/2019
Svetlana Valeryevna BEKMANSUROVA
1991
Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
25/12/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
33446/19
11/06/2019
Yevgeniy Georgiyevich TIPIKIN
1987
Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
05/03/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 3.50 p.m., brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m. and released at 11.54 p.m. 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
33511/19
11/06/2019
Dmitriy Igorevich REZNICHENKO
1990
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Komsomolsk-on-Amur
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
12/12/2018
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested and brought to the police station at 2.10 p.m. and released after 7 p.m. 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
34626/19
17/06/2019
Sergey Yegorovich PFAYFER
1969
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Novosibirsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
18/12/2018
3,500
35098/19
20/06/2019
Mikhail Fedorovich ABAKUMOV
1963
Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
15/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 3 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 2.40 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
37430/19
01/07/2019
Andrey Dmitriyevich MEDVEDSKIY
1991
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
16/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.30 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 2.30 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
40133/19
19/07/2019
Aleksey Aleksandrovich KOLYADA
1983
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Krasnoyarsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
31/01/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
43312/19
02/06/2019
Aleksey Viktorovich NEMTSEV
1987
Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna
Oktyabrskiy
Novosibirsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
22/01/2019
3,500
43948/19
02/08/2019
Nikolay Vladimirovich PETUKHOV
1991
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
06/02/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 5 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m., released at 10.40 p.m. 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
44374/19
13/08/2019
Makar Viktorovich ALISOV
2000
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
13/02/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.20 p.m. and brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m., released at 9.34 p.m. 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
44375/19
01/08/2019
Venzhik Ravilyevich GAFIULLIN
1987
Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
20/02/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 3.30 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 2 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
44401/19
07/08/2019
Yevgeniy Borisovich SMIRNOV
1993
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
St Petersburg
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
St Petersburg City Court
28/02/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 2 p.m. and brought to the police station at 2.45 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 12.50 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.
6,000
46815/19
10/08/2019
Denis Vladislavovich BEKMANSUROV
1990
Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna
Yekaterinburg
Yekaterinburg
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
10/04/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
46953/19
28/08/2019
Viktoriya Sergeyevna BRAGINA
2001
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Khabarovsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
15/03/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested and brought to the police station at 3.40 p.m., released at 6 p.m. on 09/09/2018)
4,000
47060/19
28/08/2019
Yelena Vladimirovna KOCHKINA
1988
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Perm
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
14/03/2019
3,500
47387/19
23/08/2019
Tatyana Nikolayevna POVALIY
1977
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Belgorod
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours of community work
Belgorod Regional Court 11/02/2019 (received on 18/03/2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
47474/19
28/08/2019
Liliya Kurtovna OTTO
1965
Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Krasnoyarsk
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
28/03/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
48304/19
28/08/2019
Aleksey Yuryevich KLIMISHIN
1996
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
28/02/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
49206/19
28/08/2019
Dmitriy Nikolayevich PLISHKIN
2000
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Perm
Article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
06/03/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
50290/19
09/09/2019
Sergey Alekseyevich OSOKIN
1989
Krasnodar
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
30/07/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
51747/19
22/09/2019
Ivan Albertovich SHCHETININ
1996
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
22/03/2019
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – inability to cross-examine in open court any witnesses, including police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.
3,500
54204/19
07/10/2019
Semen Valeryevich TARAKANOV
1987
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Perm
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Perm Regional Court
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
62601/19
23/11/2019
Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich KHLYNOV
1999
Dubinin Nikolay Anatolyevich
Moscow
Moscow
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
28/05/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
64296/19
27/11/2019
Nikita Aleksandrovich KHRAMOV
1995
Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna
Kazan
Kazan
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
29/05/2019
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 5 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.25 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 1.35 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.