FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF UVARKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 70089/12 and 40 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Uvarkina and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 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. They 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 and 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, and having due regard to the issue of compliance with the six-month period under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID‑related extension of the period in question), 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 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”); Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7 February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events; 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, related to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
15. Firstly, the Court considers that, in view of its findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, 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.
16. Furthermore, the Court has 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.
17. 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 CONVENTION18. 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.”
19. Having regard to the nature of the complaint raised by Mr Ishutin in application no. 70440/17, the Court considers that the finding of a violation, triggering the respondent State’s obligation to take measures aimed at ensuring the respect of the right to freedom of assembly indicated in the judgment of Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, §§ 27-29, 27 November 2018, constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in that case (see, for a similar approach, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26624/15 and 76 others, § 18, 16 January 2020, Zverev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26363/18 and 2 others, § 15, 7 July 2022, and Taratunin and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 2051/18 and 4 others, § 14, 28 July 2022)
20. As to the remaining applicants, 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 the 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 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 that the finding of the violation of Article 11 in respect of Mr Ishutin in application no. 70440/17 constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 13 April 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
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]
70089/12
06/10/2012
and
11801/18
16/02/2018
Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA
1975
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Protest against the results of 2011 Parliamentary elections
Syktyvkar
10/12/2011
Anti-corruption rally
Syktyvkar
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 500
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
18/07/2013
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 16/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
14146/14
31/01/2014
and
17361/19
18/03/2019
Aleksey Nikolayevich ZHITNIKOV
1978
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
Rally in support of the “March of Millions”
Perm
12/06/2013
Rally against the pension reform
Perm
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
administrative detention of 15 days
Perm Regional Court
01/08/2013
Perm Regional Court
18/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 09/09/2018 at 6.40 p.m. the applicant was taken to a 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 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 6.1 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 10/09/2018, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
52481/17
08/07/2017
and
74992/17
19/09/2017
Irina Aleksandrovna YATSENKO
1981
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Political rally
Moscow
25/08/2016
“Readings of the Russian Constitution” Moscow
12/09/2016
“Readings of the Russian Constitution” Moscow
12/05/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 15,000
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
administrative fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court 16/01/2017
Moscow City Court 24/03/2017
Moscow City Court 26/10/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (events of 12/09/2016 and 12/05/2017);
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 12/09/2016 and 12/05/2017 the applicant was taken to a 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 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity.
4,000
69791/17
20/09/2017
Raushan Faizovich VALIULLIN
1984
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
Anti-corruption rally
Naberezhnye Chelny
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
16/08/2017
3,500
70440/17
07/09/2017
Kirill Dmitriyevich NIKOLENKO
1989
Kirill Valeryevich ISHUTIN
1984
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anti-corruption rally
Vladimir
(Mr Nikolenko)
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
(Mr Nikolenko)
administrative fine of RUB 25,000
(Mr Nikolenko)
Vladimir Regional Court
02/08/2017
(Mr Nikolenko)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO in respect of Mr Nikolenko;
Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - local administration’s refusal to approve the opposition march on 29/04/2017 organised by Mr Nikolenko and Mr Ishutin (final decision Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 22/02/2018).
3,500
(Mr Nikolenko)
70491/17
07/09/2017
and
21716/19
08/04/2019
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TETERIN
1979
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
and
Akhtyamova Chulpan Salavatovna
Kazan
Anti-corruption rally
Naberezhnye Chelny
26/03/2017
Rally against the pension reform Naberezhnye Chelny
09/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
07/06/2017
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
17/10/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 09/09/2018 and 18/09/2018 the applicant was 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 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity.
4,000
4522/18
25/12/2017
Maksim Sergeyevich TERESHKIN
1984
Sidelnikova Polina Aleksandrovna
Vladivistok
Anti-corruption rally
Vladivostok
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
28/06/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
4552/18
12/01/2018
Andrey Sergeyevich MELKHOV
1988
Vladimir Valeryevich SOLDATOV
1990
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Anti-corruption rally
Ukhta
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 5,000
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 12/07/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 26/03/2017 the applicants were taken to the police station as administrative suspects: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspects’ identity; detention from 2.25 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. (Mr Melkhov) and from 2.25 p.m. to 7.25 p.m. (Mr Soldatov) with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
(Mr Melkhov)
4,000
(Mr Soldatov)
4847/18
17/01/2018
Anton Borisovich RASIN
1989
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Vladivostok
12/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
23/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
5195/18
17/01/2018
Mariya Igorevna ZINCHENKO
1990
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Vladivostok
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
02/08/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - on 26/03/2017 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
5327/18
08/01/2018
and
7933/19
25/01/2019
Vyacheslav Ilyich GIMADI
1985
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
and
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Anti-corruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
18/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;
Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events – Moscow city administration’s numerous refusals to approve public meetings with A. Navalnyy in Pushkinskaya Square in Moscow between 30/09/2017 and 16/12/2017 (final decisions were given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 14/09/2018, 04/10/2018, 05/10/2018, 18/10/2018, 26/10/2018; 23/11/2018 and 12/12/2018).
3,500
7861/18
10/01/2018
Maksim Anatolyevich RAZMETOV
1967
Political march
St Petersburg
29/04/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
27/06/2017
(copy received on 20/07/2017)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
11830/18
02/03/2018
Radislav Rafailovich FEDOROV
1983
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption rally
Naberezhnye Chelny
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 13/09/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
24202/18
08/05/2018
Yuriy Yuryevich VOLOBUYEV
1968
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Political rally
Smolensk
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 20,000
Smolensk Regional Court
14/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO.
3,500
28408/18
30/05/2018
Maksim Dmitriyevich SOLODNIKOV
1998
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Political rally
Perm
07/10/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
community work of 20 hours
Perm Regional Court
30/11/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
30475/18
14/06/2018
and
8274/20
21/01/2020
Mikhail Mikhaylovich SILICH
1938
Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
Moscow
Political rally
Moscow
08/10/2017
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 2,000
administrative fine of RUB 5,000
Moscow City Court
16/03/2018
Moscow City Court 24/10/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
3,500
35074/18
12/07/2018
Irina Alekseyevna ILYINA
1961
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Political rally
Moscow
14/06/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/01/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - on 14/06/2017 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
37025/18
25/07/2018
Konstantin Matveyevich SALTYKOV
1998
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy “Strike of voters”
Moscow
28/01/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
and
Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
administrative detention of 30 days
and
administrative detention of 15 days
Moscow City Court
08/02/2018 (two decisions)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 28/01/2018 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; detention at the police station from 2.40 p.m. on 28/01/2018 to 1.20 p.m. on 29/01/2018 with no justification; the record of administrative arrest was compiled only eight hours after the applicant’s arrest and escorting to the police station;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO and under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO.
5,000
41140/18
25/07/2018
Anton Sergeyevich GRACHEV
1980
Political rally
Gatchina, Leningrad Region
09/03/2018
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention of 5 days
Leningrad Regional Court
20/03/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO;
Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - local administration’s refusal to approve the locations and dates of political rallies on 07/10/2017 and 08/10/2017 (final decision Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 15/08/2018).
5,000
50045/18
10/10/2018
Semen Sergeyevich LASKIN
1990
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Political rally “He is not our tsar”
Voronezh
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
26/06/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;
Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - local administration’s refusal to approve the location and date of the political rally “Strike of voters” on 28/01/2018 (final decision by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 25/05/2018).
3,500
50624/18
10/10/2018
Nikita Olegovich RYAZHSKIKH
1999
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Political rally “He is not our tsar”
Voronezh
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Voronezh Regional Court
04/06/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO;
Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - local administration’s refusals to approve the locations and dates of four public events planned between 10/11/2017 and 25/11/2017 (final decisions were given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
23/07/2018 and 18/09/2018).
3,500
56385/18
17/11/2018
Aleksandra Andreyevna SHINKAREVA
1998
Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich
Tbilisi, Georgia
Political rally “He is not our tsar”
Irkutsk
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO
community work of 50 hours
Irkutsk Regional Court
18/07/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO.
3,500
11398/19
15/02/2019
and
52155/19
20/09/2019
and
9303/20
31/01/2020
and
30159/20
21/05/2019
Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV
1988
Zamyatin Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich
Berlin
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Los Vladlen Kornelevich
Vilnius
Rally against the pension reform
Moscow
09/09/2018
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
14/07/2019
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 250,000
administrative fine of RUB 25,000
administrative detention of 15 days
Moscow City Court
12/04/2019
Moscow City Court 26/02/2020
Moscow City Court
02/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 25/10/2018 and 27/07/2019 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; detention at the police station from 9.25 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 8.30 p.m. on 29/07/2019 with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 2, Article 20.2 § 6.1 and Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO;
Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events –
Moscow City administration’s refusals to approve the locations and dates of five public meetings with A. Navalnyy planned between 29/09/2017 and 06/11/2017 (final decisions were given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 24/08/2018, 27/08/2018, 17/09/2018 and 23/11/2018).
7,000
18503/19
21/03/2019
Timur Kamalutdinovich RASULOV
1998
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
“Disappearing Constitution” protest
St Petersburg
10/10/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
community work of 100 hours
St Petersburg City Court
29/01/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO.
3,500
22911/19
10/04/2019
Illarion Yevgenyevich LITVINOV
1994
Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Vladivostok
Rally against the pension reform
Vladivostok
01/07/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
24/12/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 28/07/2018 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
22914/19
10/04/2019
Tatyana Yuryevna KHARDINA
2000
Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Vladivostok
Rally against the pension reform
Vladivostok
01/07/2018
Rally against the pension reform
Vladivostok
09/09/2018
Rally against the pension reform
Vladivostok
15/09/2018
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
administrative fine of RUB 5,000
Primorye Regional Court
27/11/2018
Primorye Regional Court
09/01/2019
Primorye Regional Court
15/11/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 04/07/2018 at 1.50 p.m. and on 15/09/2018 at 2.10 p.m. the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; detention in the police station from 3 p.m. on 15/09/2018 to 2.10 p.m. on 17/09/2018 with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
5,000
6929/20
14/01/2020
Ivan Mikhaylovich ZVYAGIN
1992
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
“Monstration” public event
Kursk
01/05/2019
Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Kursk Regional Court
13/08/2019
3,500
6955/20
14/01/2020
Sergey Vladimirovich BAZHENOV
1969
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
“Monstration” public event
Kursk
01/05/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Kursk Regional Court
20/08/2019
3,500
6957/20
14/01/2020
Nadezhda Igorevna KOLYCHEVA
1991
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
“Monstration” public event
Kursk
01/05/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Kursk Regional Court
27/08/2019
3,500
6962/20
14/01/2020
Yelena Vladimirovna VETROVA
1972
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
“Monstration” public event
Kursk
01/05/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Kursk Regional Court
13/08/2019
3,500
38358/20
22/07/2020
Petr Ivanovich KIKILYK
1944
Ruchko Irina Yuryevna
Yekaterinburg
Political rally
Degtyarsk, Sverdlovsk Region
13/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 20,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
23/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 13/07/2019 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; detention from 3.30 p.m. on 13/07/2019 to 11.45 a.m. on 14/07/2019 with no justification;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO.
4,000
38452/20
18/06/2020
Matvey Alekseyevich ALEKSANDROV
2000
Eysmont Mariya Olegovna
Moscow
Political rally
Moscow
13/10/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
18/12/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – on 13/10/2019 the applicant was taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence records (Art. 27.2 § 1 of CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO.
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.