Published on 27 November 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 4374/18
Daniil Viktorovich GOGOLEV against Russia
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 November 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.
In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER
The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS
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 and location
Start date of unauthorised detention
End date of unauthorised detention
Specific defects
Other complaints under well-established case-law
4374/18*
10/01/2018
Daniil Viktorovich GOGOLEV
1989
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
08/07/2017
10/07/2017
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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Art. 6.9 of CAO, final decision on 12/07/2017 by Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate execution of the sentence of detention in the case under Art. 20.1 of CAO (final decision on 26/07/2017 by Krasnodar Regional Court); an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect
11309/18*
08/02/2018
Zoren Rubenovich ISABEKYAN
1968
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk
St Petersburg
22/05/2017
23/05/2017
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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Art. 19.3 of CAO, 2-day detention, final decision on 15/08/2017 by the Novosibirsk Regional Court,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - in particular, the right to examine police officers and other officials whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant, coordinator for NGO "Conscript’s school" assisting persons in relation to matters relating to military conscription, was interviewing conscripts in front of a local military registration and enlistment office, with a view to preparing the NGO’s report on conscripts’ rights; he was arrested in relation to a failure to get into a police vehicle (to submit to arrest) and was sentenced, in the above proceedings, to detention
15422/18*
28/02/2018
Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich ANTOKHIN
1975
Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko
Mytishchi
13/08/2020
14/08/2020
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
58779/18*
20/11/2018
Oksana Petrovna VOLOBUYEVA
1973
04/11/2017
06/11/2017
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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Art. 20.1 § 2 CAO, fine of RUB 2,000; final decision on 22/05/2018 by Moscow City Court,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - in particular, the right to examine police officers whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,
Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - the applicant was arrested, as specified by the police officers, with a view to preventing "extremist activities consisting in organisation of non-approved rallies", following her arrival and stay in a dormitory in Moscow; according to the applicant, she was thereby prevented from participating in a protest rally to be held on 05/11/2017
15468/19
13/03/2019
Oyumaa Sedip oolovna DONGAK
1967
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
07/08/2018
07/08/2018
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. Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 10 (1) - restriction on freedom of expression for displaying a totalitarian symbol - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 1,000 for displaying Nazi symbols (Art. 20.3 CAO, final decision on 13/09/2018 by the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic) (RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, 11 May 2021, and Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, 13 July 2021)
24195/19
27/04/2019
Marina Aleksandrovna LUKYANETS
1976
Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko
Mytishchi
05/05/2018
06/05/2018
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). 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). Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 04/02/2019, Moscow City Court,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - in particular, the right to examine police officers whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant, a municipal councillor, was present (as an “observer”) at a protest rally in Moscow on 05/05/2018; she was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 15,000 in the above proceedings
46866/19
06/08/2019
Yevgeniy Ivanovich POPOV
1990
Igor Nikolayevich Sholokhov
Kazan
08/04/2019
09/04/2019
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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in two sets of administrative-offence proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 and Art. 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decisions on 07/05/2019 by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court),
Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - the applicant, a journalist, was present at a rally on 07/04/2019; he was arrested and sentenced to two fines of RUB 15,000 in the above proceedings,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - in relation to the applicant’s participation in the rally on 07/04/2019 as a protested as considered by the courts,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the substantially the same facts underlying prosecution in the above cases
26888/20*
01/06/2020
Stanislav Sergeyevich ZHARKOV
1991
Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov
Yekaterinburg
17/11/2019
17/11/2019
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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in two sets of administrative-offence proceedings (Arts. 17.10 and 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decisions on 04/03/2020 by the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg and on 17/03/2020, by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, respectively),
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant was arrested and sentenced, in the above proceedings, to the fines of RUB 2,000 and 10,000 for using the flag of Russia during a rally against political repressions on 17/11/2019,
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the substantially the same facts underlying prosecution in both cases
51551/20*
07/11/2020
Rushan Rafisovich KABIROV
1997
29/06/2020
30/06/2020
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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
52309/20
31/10/2020
Georgiy Genrikhovich MALETS
1990
Leonid Alekseyevich Solovyev
Moscow
03/02/2020
03/02/2020
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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 14/05/2020 by the Moscow City Court),
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - right to examine police officers whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,
Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - being assigned by a media outlet, the applicant was present, with a view to taking photographs, at a rally on 03/02/2020 to support persons accused in the so-called "Novoye Velichiye" case; he was arrested and sentenced, in the above proceedings, to a fine of RUB 15,000 because the courts considered that he had actively acted as a rally participant,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - in relation to the applicant’s participation in the rally on 03/02/2020 as a protester as considered by the courts
31998/21*
16/06/2021
Boris Igorevich ZHIRNOV
1960
Galina Yuryevna Arapova
Voronezh
13/11/2020
15/11/2020
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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - being assigned by a media outlet, the applicant, a journalist with the “Arsenyevsk News” newspaper, reported on the rally on 07/11/2020 to support of S. Furgal in Khabarovsk; he was arrested on 13-15/11/2020 and sentenced to 3-day detention for participation in that rally (Art. 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decision on 16/12/2020 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court),
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – as above, on account of the exercise of freedom of expression by a rally participant as considered by the courts,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 10/11/2020 the applicant published a video on his personal YouTube channel which depicted banned symbols related to a banned organisation; he was sentenced to 10-day detention (Art. 20.3. § 1 CAO, final decision on 27/01/2021 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court) (cf. RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, 11 May 2021, and Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, 13 July 2021)
32822/21*
20/06/2021
Yekaterina Nikolayevna BIYAK
1984
Tumas Arsenovich Misakyan
Moscow
12/11/2020
13/11/2020
13/11/2020
14/11/2020
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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art. 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decision on 24/12/2020 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court),
Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 10,000 and two-day detention because the courts considered her as a participant in the rallies on 13/09/2020 and 15/09/2020 and not as a journalist assigned by a media outlet to report on those rallies and clearly identified as such during them (Art. 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decisions on 22/12/2020 and 24/12/2020, respectively, by the Khabarovsk Regional Court),
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - in relation to participation in two rallies
35185/21*
18/06/2021
Yevgeniya Sergeyevna VANEYEVA
1996
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
11/02/2021
11/02/2021
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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Art. 20.2 of CAO, final decision on 09/04/2021 by the Saratov Regional Court),
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - right to examine police officers whose pre-trial statements or reports were used for convicting the applicant,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - on 21/01/2021 the applicant created a chat in “Viber” social network to organise a rally in her village to support A. Navalnyy; receiving no support among her fellow villagers, she removed the chat and cancelled the event; she was arrested and sentenced to 20 hours of community work in the above proceedings,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - see above
7948/22*
24/12/2021
Artem Aleksandrovich MAZANOV
1996
Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
01/02/2021
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 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)
Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - the applicant was present, as a journalist of TJournal, at the rally on 31/01/2021 (support to I. Dadin) and was arrested
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy