KAPUSTIN v. RUSSIA and 18 other applications

Communicated on 30 June 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 36801/09
Vladimir Yakovlevich KAPUSTIN against Russia
and 18 other applications
(see list appended)

The applicants are Russian nationals.

A. The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. Application no. 36801/09 lodged on 21 February 2008 by Vladimir Yakovlevich Kapustin, who was born on 12 September 1945 and lives in Yekaterinburg. He is represented by Anton Leonidovich Burkov.

At 9.35 a.m. on 2 December 2006 the applicant started a solo demonstration holding a placard “United Russia Party – poverty and extinction”. In ten minutes he was approached by a senior police officer who, for reasons unknown, ordered him to stop the demonstration.

According to the applicant, he refused to cease the demonstration and thus was brought to a police station. No escort or arrest record was drawn up. The applicant was required to make a written statement concerning his demonstration and placard. He was released one hour later and, apparently, continued his demonstration.

On 3 December 2006 the applicant sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the arresting officer on account of unlawful impediment to a public event (Article 149 of the Criminal Code) and abuse of power (Article 286 of the Criminal Code). A refusal to prosecute was issued. The applicant successfully challenged it in court. The pre-investigation inquiry was resumed and then closed on several occasions. On 11 December 2007 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg upheld the most recent refusal to prosecute. On 11 January 2008 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld that judgment. The courts concluded that the applicant had voluntarily followed the police officer to the station and, after his release, had continued his demonstration.

Complaints: The applicant complains under Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention of the unlawful and unjustified interruption of his solo demonstration against the ruling party, of his being taken to the police station and then being held there without a written record being drawn up.

2. Application no. 10970/12 lodged on 18 January 2012 by Yakov Aleksandrovich Grigoryev, who was born on 26 December 1984 and lives in Svetlogorsk, and Kamola Dilmuratovna Igamberdiyeva, who was born on 25 October 1989 and lives in Kaliningrad.

The second applicant notified the Kaliningrad authorities of her intention to hold a public group event on 12 December 2010 at Pobeda Square. The authorities replied that according to the official plans there would be preparations for the New Year celebrations there on that day. The authorities did not suggest any alternative venue. The second applicant did not challenge the authority’s reply before the domestic courts. Instead, she decided to hold a solo demonstration close to the Mother Russia monument.

On 12 December 2010 the first applicant held a solo demonstration holding a placard saying “Freedom for Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev! We plead for a lawful judgment”. After he had completed it and placed himself at a distance of some twenty metres, the second applicant held her own solo demonstration. She wore a t-shirt saying “Freedom for Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev!”. She completed her demonstration in five minutes.

Following that, the first applicant was taken to a police station and held there for over three hours.

The applicants were accused of breaching the regulations on public events. The cases against them were submitted to a justice of the peace. He ordered the police to submit a video recording relating to the demonstrations and showing the applicants being taken to the police station. By judgments of 3 March 2011 the justice of the peace held that, as confirmed, inter alia, by the video recording, the applicants had held solo demonstrations and had not breached the Public Events Act, including its prior notification requirement applicable to group events.

The police lodged an appeal. On 16 May 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Kaliningrad upheld the judgments.

The applicants sought compensation of 100,000 roubles (RUB) on account of the unlawful deprivations of liberty and the violation of their respective rights to express themselves by way of solo demonstrations.

By judgments of 15 and 25 July 2011 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad granted the claims by the first and second applicants respectively and awarded each of them RUB 10,000 (equivalent to 250 euros (EUR) at the time).

The first applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia, about the amount of the compensation and the first-instance court’s failure to make specific findings in relation to the violation of his freedom of expression on account of the interference with his solo demonstration. On 7 September 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment in respect of the first applicant. The appellate court considered that the interference with the freedom of expression had been acknowledged by declaration that the first applicant’s escorting to the police station had been unlawful.

The second applicant also appealed. On 21 September 2011 the Regional Court upheld the judgment in respect of her.

Complaints: The applicants complain under Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention of the termination of the demonstration (at least, as regards the second applicant), which was related to claims by the opposition, and the escorting of the first applicant to the police station and his being held there. The first applicant also argues that the derisory amount of compensation was incompatible with Article 5 § 5 of the Convention and did not constitute an acknowledgment and a proper redress for the violations under Article 5 § 1 and Article 10 of the Convention.

3. Application no. 34310/13 lodged on 8 May 2013 by Aleksey Nikolayevich Mandrigelya, who was born on 18 September 1989 and lives in Krasnodar. He is represented by Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina.

The applicant, a member of an environmental NGO, was a candidate for an opposition party in the regional legislative election of 14 October 2012. According to the applicant, because he was dissatisfied with the massive fraud alleged to have been committed during the election, on 16 October 2012 he staged a solo demonstration at the central square in Krasnodar; he lit a candle and held a funeral wreath, thus expressing his sorrow about the election.

Several police officers approached the applicant and, allegedly using physical force, took him to a police station. They drew-up an offence-scene inspection record. The applicant was then allowed to leave the station.

By a judgment of 6 November 2012 a justice of the peace convicted the applicant under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) (non-compliance with a lawful order of a law-enforcement officer) and sentenced him to fifteen days’ detention. The judgment reads as follows:

“The defendant pleaded not guilty. His guilt is confirmed by the administrative-offence record and reports from the police officers.”

On 9 November 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar held a hearing. Allegedly, journalists, the applicant’s friends and other members of the public were not allowed to attend it. On the same date, the appellate court upheld the judgment, holding as follows:

“As part of a group of some thirty people the defendant participated in a presumed public event that was held in violation of the Public Events Act ... He refused to comply with [the police officer’s] lawful request to cease the commission of the offence and to follow him to the police station.”

By a judgment of 20 December 2012 another justice of the peace convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO in the relation to the same event and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 22,000[1]. The court held that the applicant “had organised” a group event (a static demonstration) without giving prior notification to the competent authority.

On 5 March 2013 the Bryukhovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar Region upheld the judgment.

Complaints: The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his taking to the police station and the sentence of detention were arbitrary since he had not resisted or otherwise disobeyed any lawful order. Referring to Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains of being prevented from expressing his opinion about the election and of being arbitrarily convicted in the absence of any proof that he had organised a group event.

4. Application no. 53545/13 lodged on 27 July 2013 by Tatyana Andreyevna Makarova, who was born on 18 January 1989 and lives in Moscow. She is represented by Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov.

On 14 December 2012 the Duma voted through at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited the adoption of children of Russian nationality by citizens of the United States of America.

On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading was scheduled for 19 December 2012.

According to the applicant, she read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo demonstrations on 19 December 2012 in front of the Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo demonstrations was chosen because there was no time to respect the minimum statutory three-day notification period for other public assemblies.

The applicant decided to hold her own solo demonstration and at 9 a.m. positioned herself in the vicinity of the Duma at some distance from other demonstrators.

According to the applicant, she was arrested by the police several minutes later and brought in a police van to a nearby police station. At 10.30 a.m. the police drew up a report stating that the applicant had been escorted to the police station for the purpose of drawing up an administrative-offence report. An arrest report, drawn up at the same time, stated that the applicant had arrived at the police station at 10.30 a.m. The applicant made a handwritten statement on both reports that she had in fact been arrested at 9.30 a.m. when she had been put in the police van.

At the police station the applicant was charged with participation in a public assembly held without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. The applicant was released soon thereafter.

On 15 January 2013 a justice of the peace convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000. The justice of the peace found it established, on the basis of police reports, that the applicant had taken part in a demonstration of fifty people.

On 14 February 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment on appeal.

Complaints: The applicant complains of the termination of her solo demonstration, of her taking to the police station and conviction for an administrative offence; that, even presuming she had participated in a group event, such an assembly had been justified as an immediate and peaceful response to the imminent enactment of a controversial statute; and that her taking to the police station and prosecution on the sole ground of failing to observe the prior notice requirement constituted a disproportionate interference with her freedom of assembly. The applicant also argues under Article 6 of the Convention that owing to the lack of a prosecuting party, the first-instance court took on the role of prosecution and collected incriminating evidence, including by way of calling witnesses. The applicant also argues that the courts at both levels of jurisdiction were not “established by law” because after 1 January 2013 justices of the peace no longer had jurisdiction in cases relating to Article 20.2 of the CAO; neither could district courts act as courts of appeal in such cases any longer.

5. Application no. 56703/13 lodged on 19 August 2013 by Aleksandra Yuryevna Astakhova, who was born on 1 January 1985, and Yelizaveta Antonovna Fokht-Babushkina, who was born on 1 January 1994. The applicants live in Moscow. They are represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko, a lawyer practicing in Moscow.

The circumstances of the present case are similar to those of Ms Makarova’s case (see application no. 53545/13 above).

Officers R. and M. drew up written reports in respect of each applicant, which (all nearly verbatim) stated that each applicant had taken part in a non-notified group event and had refused to end it.

On an unspecified date, the administrative-offence cases against the applicants were accepted for examination by a justice of the peace. On 16 January 2013 the justice of the peace dismissed the applicants’ application for the mandatory participation of a public prosecutor.

The justice of the peace agreed to hear oral evidence from Officers R. and M. R. attended the hearing and was examined by the applicants. For reasons unknown, M. did not attend the hearing.

By judgments of 31 January 2013 the justice of the peace convicted the applicants under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and imposed fines of RUB 20,000 on each of them. The court relied on the administrative-offence record, the police officers’ written reports and R.’s oral testimony at the trial.

The applicants appealed.

The appellate court heard evidence from M., who stated that some fifty people had been present at the venue on the relevant day, standing at a distance of 5-10 metres from each other and holding banners with similar content, that is to say statements against the draft statute prohibiting child adoption by American nationals.

The appellate court also required an additional examination of R.

On 21 February and 21 March 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgments in respect of the second and first applicants respectively. The appellate court also noted that M. had been on annual leave during the trial but had then been examined during the appeal proceedings.

On 1 and 5 July 2013 the Moscow City Court examined their applications for review. The reviewing judge reclassified the charges as falling under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and reduced the fines to RUB 10,000.

Complaints: The applicants complain on account of the termination of their solo demonstrations, of their taking to the police station and the high fines for the administrative offences; that their escorting to the police station and their prosecution on the sole ground of failing to observe the prior notice requirement constituted a disproportionate interference with their freedom of assembly. The applicants also argue under Article 6 of the Convention that the lack of a prosecuting party in the case violated the requirement of objective impartiality.

6. Application no. 68537/13 lodged on 23 October 2013 by Naylya Razinovna Ibragimova, who was born on 19 September 1988 and lives in Murmansk.

On 17 August 2012 the applicant held a solo demonstration, protest against the criminal conviction of the members of the Pussy Riot group. She wore a balaclava on her head so that only her eyes remained visible, in a manner resembling the group’s performances. Several police officers were standing nearby but did not interfere, allowing the applicant to complete her demonstration.

On the day of the demonstration the police did not interview the applicant and did not check her identity document. However, later on the police identified the applicant by other means.

On 30 September 2012 the applicant was accused of hiding her face during a public event, which was prohibited by section 6(4) of the Public Events Act (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). Thus, in the authorities’ view, the applicant committed an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO since the above violation amounted to a public-event organiser’s breach of the “established regulations concerning organisation and running of a meeting, demonstration, march or picket”.

By a judgment of 16 November 2012 a justice of the peace convicted the applicant and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 10,000 (equivalent to EUR 247 at the time).

On 24 April 2013 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Murmansk upheld the conviction.

Complaints: The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that her conviction was unlawful and disproportionate: the use of a balaclava (also used by Pussy Riot in their performances) was justified on account of the subject of the event; the relevant domestic law was excessively rigid and failed to make room for exceptions to the rule prohibiting hiding his or her face during a (group) event; the size of the fine was excessive.

7. Application no. 66883/14 lodged on 18 September 2014 by Akhmad Dzhavid Abdullovich Khakim, who was born on 27 February 1988, and Olga Petrovna Noskovets, who was born on 28 April 1976. Both live in Sochi and are represented by Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov.

The first applicant is a civil-liberties and political activist and was at the time the local leader of Partiya Progressa, an unregistered opposition party. The second applicant is an ecological and political activist and was at the time the deputy leader of the local branch of Yabloko, an opposition party.

In August 2013 the President of Russia issued Decree no. 7 concerning security measures in the town of Sochi in relation to the XXII Olympic Winter Games (held in February 2014). In particular the decree prohibited, between 7 January and 21 March 2014, public events (such as meetings, demonstrations or similar) that were not related to the Olympic Games.

The applicants agreed to meet at a bus stop and then to go towards the entrance to the Olympic Park in Sochi where they planned to stage solo demonstrations to protest against the arrest of Mr V. On 23 February 2014 at the bus stop the first applicant was approached by three police officers who ordered him to show his identity document. The applicant complied by showing his passport while refusing to hand it over to the officers. He was then taken to a police station.

Thirty minutes later, the second applicant approached the bus stop and was also ordered to show her identity document. According to the second applicant, she handed over her passport to the police officers. She was then ordered to come with them to the police station. The applicant refused and was taken to the station.

Ms M. was present at the bus stop and saw both arrests.

The applicants were accused of an offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO because of their non-compliance with police orders to show identity documents and to follow the officers to the station.

The applicants were placed in detention and were released on 25 February 2014.

On that date the Khostinskiy District Court of Sochi convicted the first applicant of the offence and sentenced him to four days of detention.

On the same date the District Court also convicted the second applicant of the offence and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 1,000. The applicant was released after the trial hearing.

The second applicant appealed, arguing that the police had had no valid reasons to check her identity and thus to require her to show her identity document. The second applicant and her lawyer were not notified of the appeal hearing listed for 18 March 2014 and did not participate in it; the appellate court proceeded to the examination of the file and did not hear any oral representations. The appellate court made no findings relating to the notification matter. By a decision of 18 March 2014 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment in respect of the second applicant. The appellate court stated that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by such evidence as the offence record, as well as by other evidence such as the arrest record and testimony. In particular, the appellate court mentioned that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by testimonies of Z. and B., as well as by reports from Officers S., Be., D. and Sh. According to the applicant, no such evidence was presented and examined at the trial.

The first applicant’s lawyer also appealed. The first applicant and his lawyer were not notified of the appeal hearing listed for 20 March 2014 and did not participate in it; the appellate court proceeded to the examination of the file and did not hear any oral representations. The appellate court made no findings relating to the notification matter. By a decision of 20 March 2014 the Regional Court upheld the judgment in respect of the first applicant. The appellate court stated that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by such evidence as the offence record, as well as by other evidence such as the arrest record or testimony.

Complaints: The applicants complain under Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention of being prevented from holding their respective solo demonstrations, of being taken to the police station and detained there, as well as of their respective convictions for the administrative offence. In particular, the applicants argue that the police had no reasons to suspect them of any offence. The police actions were a disproportionate reaction to their civic position and the authorities’ intention to prevent any public protests due to the festivities concerning the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games.

They also argue, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the convictions were based on the testimonies of the police officers who had drawn up the offence record; this record was, in substance, a bill of indictment but was used by the courts as a piece of evidence for convicting them; the applicants and their representatives were not notified of the appeal hearings and did not participate in them.

8. Application no. 73423/14 lodged on 5 November 2014 by Akhmad Dzhavid Abdullovich Khakim, who was born on 27 February 1988 and lives in Sochi. He is represented by Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov.

At 1 p.m. on 17 February 2014 the applicant held a solo demonstration in Sochi. Five minutes later, he was approached by police officers who ordered him to stop the demonstration. The applicant was taken to a police station and then before a justice of the peace. On the same day, the justice of the peace convicted him of an offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO and sentenced him to thirty hours of community service. The Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi quashed this judgment on appeal and ordered a re-examination of the case. The case was reassigned to the District Court who listed a hearing for 20 March 2014.

The applicant’s lawyer sought an adjournment on account of illness. On 20 March 2014 the District Court held a hearing. The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during it. On the same day, it convicted the applicant of the offence and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000.

The applicant appealed.

On 6 May 2014 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment. According to the applicant, he and his lawyer had not been notified of the appeal hearing and thus did not take part in it.

The applicant lodged a complaint before the Constitutional Court of Russia, arguing that Decree no. 7 (mentioned above) unlawfully interfered with fundamental rights since the Constitution only permitted restrictions of such rights by way of a federal statute enacted by Parliament. On 17 February 2015 the Constitutional Court declined jurisdiction because the provision of the decree concerning public events was no “longer pertinent” after the closure of the Olympic Games.

Complaints: The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to legal assistance was violated by the court’s refusal to adjourn and by its failure to appoint another lawyer; that he and his lawyer were not notified of the appeal hearing and could not participate in it. The applicant argues, under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, that there were no compelling reasons to terminate his peaceful demonstration and to take him to the police station; a solo demonstration did not require prior notification to the public authorities and thus he could not be lawfully convicted of the offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO. In any event, the restrictions arising from Decree no. 7 constituted an unlawful interference since Article 55 of the Constitution only permitted restrictions on fundamental rights by way of a “federal statute”.

9. Application no. 23814/15 lodged on 7 May 2015 by Viktoriya Sergeyevna Muchnik, who was born on 1 May 1968 and lives in Tomsk. She is represented by Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov.

Between 4 and 14 January 2015 the applicant staged nine solo demonstrations to protest against the local authorities’ recent decision to deprive a television company of its broadcast frequency. It appears that some other people also held solo demonstrations.

The applicant was accused of participating in public group events that had not been subject to prior notification to the local authority. It was considered that, while the applicant and other solo demonstrators did comply with the local requirement of a 30-metre distance between them, there was still a single event amounting to an “assembly” of several people.

On 3 March 2015 the case against the applicant was submitted to the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk. On the same day, it was assigned to a judge who set a hearing for 4.30 p.m. At 1.45 p.m. the judge’s assistant informed the applicant accordingly by telephone. The judge dismissed the application for adjournment for two day because this type of case had to be examined on the same day it was received by a court. However, the judge gave the applicant an hour to study the file. The hearing lasted from 6 p.m. to 11.28 p.m. By a judgment of 3 March 2015 the judge convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000.

The court considered that the applicant’s calls via Facebook to support the television company through protests and the applicant’s correspondence with other people disclosed that she was the group demonstrations’ organiser. According to the applicant, the court unlawfully aggravated the charge by modifying her alleged role from a participant to the events’ organiser.

The applicant appealed to the Tomsk Regional Court. The appellate court held hearings on 10 and 13 March 2015. In the absence of a prosecuting party, the court took the initiative of calling witnesses and examining them. By a decision of 13 April 2015 the appellate court excluded the reference to the applicant as the events’ organiser but upheld the remainder of the trial judgment.

On 7 September 2015 and 10 February 2016 the Regional Court and then the Supreme Court of Russia respectively dismissed the applicant’s applications for review.

Complaints: Referring to Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant argues that she was convicted despite her observance of the distance requirement; that the courts’ reliance on the reclassification rule was not a foreseeable application of the law; that she was ordered to pay a high fine for merely peaceful conduct, which however was judged as contrary to domestic legislation. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the absence of a prosecuting party and the active role taken by the judge (aggravation of the charge, calling and examining witnesses) disclosing a lack of impartiality and a violation of the principle of adversarial procedure and equality of arms; the applicant was not afforded “adequate time and facilities” to prepare her defence.

10. Application no. 37513/15 lodged on 3 July 2015 by Aleksandr Yuryevich Rykhlin who was born on 4 May 1958 and lives in Moscow.

On 22 April 2015 the applicant together with Mr Sharov (application no. 37528/15 below) and three others sent a written notification to the Moscow Mayor’s office of their intention to hold a demonstration with some 15,000 participants on 6 May 2015 on Bolotnaya Square. After expiry of the statutory period for the authority’s reply, on 28 April 2015 the applicants wrote to the Mayor’s office. By telephone on 27 April 2015 and then by email on 30 April 2015 they were informed that, for reasons unknown at the time, the Mayor’s office opposed the event as planned. Instead, the Mayor’s office suggested that the event be held on Marshal Vasilevskiy Street. The event organisers were also warned that if they rejected this proposal, they would not be allowed to hold a public event.

According to the applicant, he informed all the putative participants accordingly by way of posting information on the Internet and via various mass-media outlets.

On 6 May 2015 the applicant arrived at Bolotnaya Square, where some fifty people had gathered and were standing quietly. At 7.05 p.m. he placed himself at a distance from them and held a placard saying “On 6 May 2012 the police dispersed a peaceful demonstration here”. Immediately the applicant was arrested by the police and taken to a police station.

On 7 May 2015 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow held a hearing at which it examined the applicant and heard representations from his lawyer. By a judgment of the same date this court convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to ten days’ detention. The court considered that the applicant had organised and had run a “meeting”. The court also stated that the argument about a solo demonstration was just a means to avoid liability and refused to accept in evidence a video recording because it was “undated and did not contain the entire chronology of events preceding [the applicant’s] arrest”.

On 13 May 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. Referring to the statutory definition of a “meeting” (the presence of people in a specific place in order to express publicly their opinions, essentially on social and political issues), the appellate court noted that some fifty people had been present at the square and that the applicant had uttered phrases with political content.

Complaints: Referring to Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was prevented from and punished for expressing peacefully his opinion on a matter of public interest. He alleges under Article 5 of the Convention that there were no compelling reasons to arrest him and to hold him at the police station; and, under Article 6 of the Convention, that in the absence of a prosecuting party the trial judge combined the roles of prosecutor and judge.

11. Application no. 37528/15 lodged on 3 July 2015 by Sergey Aleksandrovich Sharov, who was born on 27 September 1956 and lives in Moscow.

The circumstances of the case and the complaints are similar to those in application no. 37513/15 above.

12. Application no. 52936/15 lodged on 15 October 2015 by Aleksey Nikolayevich Lobanov, who was born on 18 March 1984 and lives in St Petersburg.

On 10 October 2014 the applicant held a solo demonstration, protesting against the inadequate medical care provided to his grandfather. The applicant placed himself close to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier memorial in the Alexander Garden in the immediate vicinity of the Moscow Kremlin, the seat of the Russian Presidency. He held a placard saying “I require punishment for those who failed to provide treatment to my grandfather”.

The applicant was immediately arrested by the police and taken to a police station.

By a judgment of 26 November 2014 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 10,000. The court considered that the demonstration had been held in a prohibited area that was adjacent to the residence of the Russian President.

On 24 April 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.

Complaint: Referring to Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that there was no compelling reason for interfering with his freedom of expression.

13. Application no. 56516/15 lodged on 6 November 2015 by Irina Leonidovna Kalmykova, Yelena Gennadyevna Koroleva, Mariya Aleksandrovna Ryabikova and Anastasiya Mikhaylovna Sheveleva, who were born on 10 September 1960, 17 June 1964, 19 April 1974 and 5 January 1991 respectively. The first applicant lives in the Khanty‑Mansiyskiy Region, the others live in Moscow.

1. Concerning the events of 11 May 2015

(a) Demonstration(s), conditions of detention and related ancillary proceedings

According to the applicants, on 11 May 2015 the applicants and another person (a Mr Ionov) decided to stage, in rotation, solo demonstrations in front of Moscow detention centre no. 77/1 to mark their support for Lt. Savchenko, a Ukranian national and military officer.[2]

The police considered that the above amounted to a group event in the form of a meeting (митинг) and thus required a prior notification to the competent authority. The police arrested the applicants and took them to Sokolniki police station and Preobrazhenskiy police station. It is unclear whose solo demonstration was ongoing and was interrupted by the arrival of the police.

Following their escorting to the police station, Ms Kalmykova and Ms Ryabikova were placed in one cell measuring 3 sq. m. Ms Koroleva and Ms Sheveleva were placed in a similar cell. The cells had no toilets. The applicants in Sokolniki police station were eventually taken to a toilet; the toilet in Preobrazhenskiy police station was not functioning at all. No blankets were provided, despite the low temperatures in the cell. The applicants were not provided with food or drinking water. They were released at 5 p.m. on 12 May.

The applicants brought proceedings falling within the scope of Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (judicial review in respect of acts, actions or omissions on the part of public authorities), in relation to the termination of the event(s), the arrests and conditions of detention in the station(s).

On 14 August 2015 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow refused to deal with the claims, considering that they all were, in substance, related to the legality of the arrest procedure under the CAO and thus no civil action under the Code of Civil Procedure could be lodged.

On an unspecified date the Moscow City Court upheld this decision.

(b) Ms Koroleva’s trial

The applicant argued at her trial that she had stopped by to talk to Mr P. and had not taken part in any assembly.

Mr P. stated that he had told the applicant about the planned event and had invited her to participate in it.

The arresting officer affirmed at the trial that she had seen the applicant participating in an assembly and uttering slogans against the government. The court also heard evidence from the officers who had drawn up the arrest record and the offence record at the police station; and Officer G., who stated that she had been told by her colleagues that the applicant had taken part in a non-notified event and had uttered slogans against the government.

By a judgment of 5 June 2015, the District Court convicted Ms Koroleva under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO because she had participated in a group event without prior notification and had uttered such phrases as “Putin, a liar” or “Putin, a thief”. The court sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000. The court considered that the applicant’s guilt was proven by the offence record – which was treated as a piece of evidence – the arrest record, reports and testimonies of the arresting officers and other officers.

On 16 September 2015 the Moscow City Court reclassified the case under Article 20.2 § 5 and reduced the sentence to RUB 10,000.

(c) Ms Sheveleva’s trial

The applicant vainly requested that the court summon the arresting Officers D. and U. to testify at the trial. The applicant also lodged an application to have an official designated for the purpose of presenting the case against her at the trial.

Ms I. testified, under oath, that the applicant had not been participating in a group event. The court dismissed this testimony as an attempt to help a friend.

The court heard evidence from Officer G., who stated that she had been told by her colleagues that the applicant had taken part in a non-notified event and had uttered slogans against the government.

By a judgment of 5 June 2015 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow convicted Ms Sheveleva under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000. The court found it established that the applicant had taken part in a group event without notice and had uttered anti-government phrases such as “Putin, a liar”, thus committing an offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO. The court considered that the applicant’s guilt was proven by the offence record – which was treated as a piece of evidence – the arrest record and a report from Officer R.

The applicant appealed, denying that she had taken part in a group event or had uttered any anti-government slogans.

On 16 September 2015 the Moscow City Court reclassified the case under Article 20.2 § 5 and reduced the sentence to RUB 10,000.

(d) Ms Ryabikova’s trial

On 12 May 2015 the District Court returned to the police for amendment the administrative-offence record in respect of Ms Ryabikova, noting that it was incomplete. Apparently, the proceedings were not pursued.

Complaints: The applicants complain under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention of the conditions of detention in the police stations and the court-house on 11 and 12 May 2015 and the lack of effective remedies in that connection. They complain, under Article 5 of the Convention, of their taking to the police stations and continued detention. Ms Koroleva and Ms Sheveleva complain, under Article 6 of the Convention, of the lack of a prosecuting party and the appellate court’s failure to examine the arresting officers. Lastly, Ms Koroleva complains that she was wrongly prosecuted for a breach of the Public Events Act, thus infringing Article 11 of the Convention.

2. Additional complaint by Ms Ryabikova concerning the events of 31 October 2015

On 31 October 2015 Ms Ryabikova stood at the steps in front of the 1812 War Museum, which is situated close to the Red Square. The applicant held a banner “There is Putin, so no brain is needed”. According to the applicant, she was expressing her political opinion by way of a solo demonstration. There were no other participants or passers-by. However, several journalists were present and filmed the demonstration.

Police officers P. and M. arrested the applicant and took her to a police station. She was released three hours later.

The applicant was accused of an offence under Article 20.2.2(1) of the CAO for organising “a non-public event, consisting of the simultaneous presence of people in one place”.

The case was submitted to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. The applicant asked the court to examine four people (G., I., Z. and Pu.), who had allegedly seen the demonstration and the arrest. The court dismissed this request because “the case-file material [did] not disclose that these people [had been] witnesses”.

On 10 December 2015 the District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000. On 8 April 2016 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. The appellate court held that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by several pieces of evidence such as the offence record, the arrest record and written reports from the arresting officers. The appellate court considered that there had been no need at the trial and no need in the appeal proceedings to examine the police officers.

Complaints: The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention of the termination of her solo event, her taking to the police station and conviction for something that was not classified as a public event under the Public Events Act and could not be classified as an “assembly” under the Convention. The applicant argues that her arbitrary arrest and detention in the police station was contrary to Article 5 of the Convention. She complains, under Article 6, of the lack of a prosecuting party, the absence of a possibility to examine in the appeal proceedings the police officers who had arrested her or had been otherwise involved in the drawing up of the administrative-offence file against her, as well as of the refusal of the court to hear evidence from the eyewitnesses on behalf of the defence.

14. Application no. 56957/15 lodged on 26 October 2015 by Darya Vladimirovna Kostromina, who was born on 6 January 1987 and lives in Moscow.

It appears that several solo demonstrations were held, in turn, at Manezhnaya Square in Moscow on 6 November 2014.

The applicant held a solo demonstration, holding a placard saying “Putin: Russia’s shame”. Ten minutes later, she was approached by police officers B. and P. who seized the placard. The applicant was placed in a police car and was taken to a police station.

On 24 December 2014 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow held a hearing. The judge dismissed the applicant’s application to summon the arresting officers, considering that there was enough evidence to establish the facts of the case. On the same day, the judge convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 20,000. The court held that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by various pieces of evidence such as the offence record and the police officers’ reports.

The applicant appealed, arguing that the court had made no proper assessment for concluding that there had been a single group event on 6 November 2014 rather than a series of solo demonstrations, as well as regards the legality and proportionality of the termination of the event and in respect of the arrest vis-à-vis the freedom of expression and the freedom of peaceful assembly.

On 28 April 2015 the Moscow City Court refused to summon the arresting officers. However, it did view a video recording from the event. On the same date the appellate court upheld the judgment, noting, in particular, that it could be concluded from the video and its audio that several people had been chanting slogans and had had clashes with the police.

Complaints: The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that she was deprived of an opportunity to examine the arresting officers and to cast doubt on the version of the events put forward in their reports and the offence record. She alleges, under Article 10 of the Convention, that the termination of her demonstration, her taking to the police station and detention there and the fine constituted a disproportionate interference with her freedom of expression. She argues, under Article 11 of the Convention, that the authorities arbitrarily classified the event as an “assembly” while she did not intend to associate herself with anyone present but to express her own views by way of a solo demonstration.

15. Application no. 2707/16 lodged on 18 December 2015 by Mikhail Viktorovich Mordovin, who was born on 26 August 1956 and lives in Seversk, Tomsk Region.

From 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 6 August 2014 the applicant held a solo demonstration, protesting against the persecution of political activists.

On 15 May 2015 the applicant was accused of an offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for holding a public assembly without giving prior notification to the competent authority.

On the same day the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk convicted the applicant and imposed a fine of RUB 20,000. The court considered that the applicant had concerted with others to hold a static demonstration together; the applicant had been the event organiser; and he had failed to lodge a prior notification in respect of the event. The court also held that the applicant’s guilt was proved on the strength of the available evidence: the offence record drawn up by the police; various notes drawn up by the police, for instance in relation to unspecified video recordings; screenshots of several social-media webpages; and individual testimonies. In particular, the courts noted that the videos showed the applicant and some others standing next to each other talking.

The applicant retained a lawyer and lodged an appeal against the above judgment. On 19 June 2015 the Tomsk Regional Court held an appeal hearing. The appellate court noted the available evidence did not confirm that the applicant had been the event organiser; however, he still was a participant in the public assembly that had not been notified to the competent authority. Therefore, the court reclassified his actions, found him guilty under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and reduced the fine to RUB 10,000.

It appears that in October 2015 the Regional Court rejected a further appeal on points of law by the applicant.

Complaints: The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the absence of a prosecuting party in the case and the judge’s lack of impartiality; and that he was not afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare for the trial hearing. He complains, under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, about the conviction for the administrative offence, despite the observance of the distance requirement between solo demonstrators.

16. Application no. 4954/16 lodged on 31 December 2015 by Anna Yakovlevna Pastukhova, who was born on 26 March 1952 and lives in Yekaterinburg. She is represented before the Court by Roman Kachanov, a lawyer practicing in Yekaterinburg.

At 5p.m. on 11 May 2015 a public event in the form of a meeting (митинг) was held in connection with the criminal prosecution of Lt. Savchenko, a Ukrainian military officer.

According to the applicant, she arrived at the close of the demonstration and did not intend to participate in it but to hand over certain papers to her friends who she knew would be there. However, she was taken to a police station along with some other people (including Mr Zykov, see application no. 5206/16 below).

According to the authorities, the applicant was the event’s organiser (because she gave instructions to the participants, was in possession of placards and distributed leaflets) but failed to comply with police orders to stop the unlawful event. The applicant was accused of organising a group event without giving prior notification to the authorities (Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO).

The applicant was remanded in custody, as was provided for offences punishable by detention (Article 27.5 § 3 of the CAO).

The administrative-offence file was then submitted to the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg. Allegedly, while in detention the applicant had no access to a telephone, stationary or legal books or another legal material, could not make arrangements for legal assistance and could not prepare her defence for the trial listed for 13 May 2015.

By a judgment of 13 May 2015 the District Court convicted the applicant of the offence under Article 20.2 § 5 (participation in an unlawful public event) and imposed a fine of RUB 10,000.

The applicant was released at 8.15 a.m. on 13 May 2015.

The applicant retained a lawyer and appealed.

On 1 July 2015 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court heard the lawyer’s arguments but upheld the judgment, considering that the applicant had participated in an unlawful group event and had refused to cease this activity, thereby committing “a violation of the regulations concerning the running of a public event”, namely a breach of section 17 of the Public Events Act.

Complaints: Referring to Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her arrest and (unusual for such cases) prolonged detention awaiting trial were unlawful and were not necessary; that she had insufficient “time and facilities” to prepare her defence; that the circumstances of the case disclosed an unlawful and disproportionate limitation on her freedom of expression on a sensitive political matter; that her prosecution for alleged participation in a group event violated Article 11 of the Convention.

17. Application no. 5206/16 lodged on 31 December 2015 by Sergey Arlenovich Zykov, who was born on 5 February 1972 and lives in Yekaterinburg.

According to the applicant, on 11 May 2015 he held a solo demonstration in Yekaterinburg protesting against the prosecution of Lt. Savchenko, a Ukrainian military officer. He held a placard calling for her liberation and a flag of a local non-governmental organisation. His demonstration lasted for an hour from 4 to 5 p.m.

Ten other people also held solo demonstrations at different times and places in Yekaterinburg on the same day. After the end of their respective demonstrations, the applicant and some others went through the area called Historical Square in Yekaterinburg where they and Ms Pastukhova (see application no. 4954/16 above) were arrested and then taken to a police station at 6.15 p.m. Apparently, the police explained to the applicant that he was arrested because he resembled a person who was suspected of an offence.

The applicant was charged under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO of organising an unlawful public event in the form of a meeting. The applicant was remanded in custody as was provided for offences punishable by detention (Article 27.5 § 3 of the CAO). The applicant was released at 8.30 a.m. on 13 May 2015.

By a judgment of 22 May 2015 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 5 for participation in an unlawful event and imposed a fine of RUB 10,000. The court considered that there had been no reasons to consider that the applicant had been the event’s organiser; he could thus not be prosecuted under paragraph 2 of Article 20.2 of the CAO.

On 1 July 2015 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld that judgment.

Complaints: Referring to Article 6, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the arbitrary arrest because, inter alia, there was no reason to suspect him of having been the event’s organiser; of the lack of a prosecuting party in the CAO case; of an unlawful and disproportionate penalty for his political speech and unjustified absorbing of his expressive conduct under the umbrella of participation in an assembly with others and prosecution for it; that the applicant was not required under Russian law to ascertain that prior notification had been given in respect of a public event before participating in it.

18. Application no. 16159/16 lodged on 15 March 2016 by Khabib Khabibovich Pogosyan, who was born on 1 May 1988 and lives in Moscow.

This application concerns the same events as in application no. 56516/15 above.

According to the applicant, he was not one of the (solo) demonstrators who were present in front of detention centre on 11 May 2015 and did not chant any slogans. However, he was present there to support them and also express his opinion regarding Lt. Savchenko’s prosecution. While he was talking to Ms Koroleva, he was arrested by the police. It appears that he was kept in the police station for several hours.

By a judgment of 5 June 2015 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow convicted him under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000. The court concluded that he had taken part in a group event, without giving prior notification to the authorities; that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by the available evidence such as the offence record, the arrest record, as well as by written reports by several officers who stated that they had heard that the applicant had been arrested because of his participation in an unlawful group event where he had chanted slogans against the government with others.

The applicant appealed to the Moscow City Court. On 27 August 2015 the applicant’s lawyer was notified that an appeal hearing was listed for 16 September 2015. As the lawyer had hearings in other cases (those of the applicants in application no. 56516/15) listed for the same day, an adjournment of the applicant’s case was sought. The appeal judge adjourned until 10 a.m. on 18 September 2015 and informed the lawyer accordingly on 16 September 2015. The judge dismissed his further request (made at 9.30 a.m. on 18 September) to have another date for an appeal hearing set because the lawyer also allegedly had a hearing listed for the same time in an unspecified case and because the applicant was out of town on a business trip.

The applicant and the lawyer did not attend the appeal hearing on 18 September 2015. By a decision of the same day, the City Court examined the statement of appeal, reclassified the case under Article 20.2 § 5 and reduced the fine to RUB 10,000.

Complaints: Referring to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that he was impeded from and prosecuted for expressing his support to the demonstrators. He complains, under Article 6, of the lack of a prosecuting party in the case; that he was deprived of an opportunity to examine in open court the arresting officers and other officers involving in the compiling of the file, and to plead his case and to adduce further evidence in an oral hearing on appeal.

19. Application no. 29674/16 lodged on 16 May 2016 by Leonid Davidovich Dubrovo who was born on 18 August 1957 and lives in Kaluga.

At 7.30 p.m. on 6 June 2015 the applicant held a solo demonstration at Manezhnaya Square and held a placard saying “Putin is today’s Hitler”. According to the applicant, he was approached by another person, Mr X., who was not known to the applicant and who had started to talk loudly; he had no placard or banner in his hands and thus could not have been mistaken for a demonstrator. Both were immediately approached by the police officers who had been observing the applicant’s demonstration. Both were then taken to a police station where an escort record, an arrest record and an offence record were drawn up. The applicant remained in the police station for three hours and was then released.

The arresting officers drew up written reports stating that there had been a group event consisting of two people without prior notification having been given to the authorities; both had had placards in their hands.

On 9 June 2015 the municipal authority issued a letter confirming that the applicant had not given any prior notification in respect of a group event to be held on 6 June 2015 at Manezhnaya Square.

The applicant was accused of an offence under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. The case was submitted to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow.

The applicant’s lawyer vainly sought that the judge issue an order for the attendance and examination of the arresting officers and other officers who had been involved in the compilation of the file.

By a judgment of 16 October 2015 the District Court convicted the applicant of the offence (participation in a group event without prior notice) and imposed a fine of RUB 20,000 (equivalent to EUR 280 at the time). In finding the applicant guilty, the court referred to the offence record as a piece of evidence that, inter alia, constituted proof that two people participated in one event; the escort record, the arrest record and the reports issued by the arresting officers were also treated as adverse evidence confirming the applicant’s guilt.

The applicant appealed to the Moscow City Court. The appellate court heard evidence from an eyewitness to the events, Ms R., on the applicant’s request. In substance she confirmed that the applicant had been holding a solo demonstration when he had been approached by another person.

On 18 November 2015 the City Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The appellate court considered that Mr X.’s identity and his role in the events were irrelevant to determining the charge against the applicant; the applicant had “taken part” in an event organised by another (unspecified) person.

It is unclear whether Mr X. has been prosecuted for any administrative offences in relation to the above events.

Complaints: Referring to Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that Mr X. acted under the instructions of (a) public official(s), with the aim of transforming his solo event into a group event, which would be in violation of the prior notice requirement under the Public Events Act; that there were no legal bases and no compelling reasons for terminating the event and for taking the applicant to the police station; his conviction for the administrative offence was arbitrary, biased and unfair, in particular on account of the lack of a prosecuting party, the active role of the trial judge and the absence of an opportunity to examine the arresting officers and other officers involved in the case; the above circumstances amounted to an unlawful, arbitrary and disproportionate interference both with the substance and manner of his expressive conduct consisting of manifesting a critical stance toward the ruling regime; his prosecution for violating the regulations on public events also violated Article 11 of the Convention.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression

(a) Russian Constitution

The Constitution of Russia guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to hold meetings, demonstrations, marches and pickets (Article 31). It also guarantees the right to freedom of thought and expression, as well as freedom to freely seek, receive, transfer and spread information by any legal means (Article 29).

Article 55 of the Constitution provides that rights and freedoms may be limited by a federal statute only in so far as it is necessary for protecting the foundations of the constitutional regime, the morals, health, rights and legitimate interests of others, and for ensuring national defence and security.

(b) Procedure for the conduct of public events

(i) General provisions

Federal Law no. FZ-54 of 19 June 2004 on Gatherings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets (“the Public Events Act”), contains the notion of a “public event” (публичное мероприятие). It is defined as an open, peaceful event accessible to all, organised on the initiative of Russian citizens, political parties, other public associations or religious associations. The aims of a public event are to express or develop opinions freely and to voice demands on issues related to political, economic, social or cultural life in the country, as well as issues related to foreign policy (section 2(1)).

A public event may be held in any convenient location, provided that it does not create a risk of building collapse or any other risks to the safety of the participants. The access of participants to certain locations may be banned or restricted in the circumstances specified by federal laws (section 8(1)). Public events in the immediate vicinity of a court are prohibited (section 8(2)).

No earlier than fifteen days and no later than ten days before the intended public event, its organisers must notify the competent regional or municipal authorities of the date, time, location or itinerary and purposes of the event, its type, the expected number of participants, and the names of the organisers. Notification of a picket involving several people must be submitted no later than three days before the intended picket or, if the deadline falls on a Sunday or a public holiday, no later than four days before the intended picket (section 7(1) and (3)). A notification of a public event is a document by which the competent authority is informed, in accordance with the procedure established by the Act, that an event will be held, so that the competent authority may take measures to ensure safety and public order during the event (section 2 (7)).

Upon receipt of such notification the competent regional or municipal authorities must, inter alia:

(1) confirm receipt of the notification;

(2) provide the organisers of the event, within three days of receiving the notification (or, in the case of a picket involving several people, if the notification is submitted less than five days before the intended picket, on the day of receipt of such notification), with reasoned suggestions for changing the location and/or time of the event, or for amending the purposes, type or other arrangements if they are incompatible with the requirements of the Act;

(3) ensure, in cooperation with the organisers of the event and representatives of the competent law-enforcement agencies, the protection of public order and citizens’ security, as well as the administration of emergency medical aid if necessary (section 12(1)).

The competent regional or municipal authority may refuse to allow a public event only if the person who has submitted the notification is not entitled to organise a public event or if it is prohibited to hold public events at the location chosen by the organisers (section 12(3)).

No later than three days before the intended date of the event (this time‑limit does not apply to pickets involving one person) the organisers of a public event must inform the authorities in writing whether or not they accept the authorities’ suggestions for changing the location and/or time of the event (section 5(4)(2)).

According to the Russian Constitutional Court, the prior notification requirement is aimed at providing advance notice and relevant information (including about the type of event, its place, timing and expected number of participants) to the competent authorities. Otherwise the authorities would be deprived of a real opportunity to comply with their constitutional obligation to respect and protect individual rights and freedoms, and to take the necessary measures aimed at ensuring safety for the participants and other people (Ruling no. 4-P of 14 February 2013; ruling no. 30-P of 5 December 2012).

Participants in public events are prohibited from hiding their faces, including by way of a mask or other items specially designed for impeding personal identification (section 6(4) of the Act). “Public event” is defined as a peaceful and accessible for all action by way of a meeting, demonstration, march or a picket (section 2(1) of the Act).

(ii) Provisions on solo static demonstrations (solo “pickets”)

The Public Events Act defines a “picket” as a form of public expression of opinion that does not involve movement or the use of loudspeaker equipment, where one or more citizens with placards, placards and other means of visual expression assemble near the target object of the picket (section 2(6)).

No notification is required for pickets involving one person (section 7(1) and (3)). On 8 June 2012 the Public Events Act was amended. New subsection (1.1) in section 7 provides that the regional statutes will determine the distance between solo demonstrators, which should not exceed fifty metres. It empowers the courts to declare that several solo demonstrations, taken together, constitute a single public event if they share the same goal and organisation.

In its ruling no. 4-P of 14 February 2013 the Russian Constitutional Court assessed the above new provision of the Act.

- The court noted that the absence of the notification requirement for solo demonstrations excluded any State interference with such public events, which could be held at any venue and at any time, unless otherwise provided by the law. However, to avoid group public events being disguised as solo demonstrations and to prevent the event’s organiser from evading his duty to notify the authority, the legislator imposed the requirement that a minimum distance be kept between solo demonstrators; this distance was to be specified by each region of Russia but could not exceed fifty metres. If the organiser evaded the duty to notify, the public authorities would be impeded in taking timely and adequate measures to ensure the requisite order for running a given civic initiative and to secure public safety and protection of the rights of the event’s participants and other people.

- In some situations even the observance of the minimum distance requirement would not exclude the abusive use of freedom of assembly by way of disguising a group event as simultaneous solo demonstrations. Thus, even where several demonstrations can be formally classified as solo demonstrations, they can be classified as a group event on account of the following: it is sufficiently evident that they have common goals and a common organisation; they are being held simultaneously and are physically close to each other; their participants use means of campaigning that are similar or identical, and put forward common claims or calls.

- The above findings must be made by a court, following an impartial and independent assessment, which gives an adequate level of protection to the constitutional right to hold a solo demonstration. The court should ascertain that there was no random coincidence of unrelated demonstrations, and should avoid classifying a solo demonstration as an event where the event merely attracts normal attention on the part of those who happened to show interest in it. Furthermore, there must be a presumption of lawfulness regarding the actions of a person exercising his or her right to hold a solo demonstration. Thus, the burden of proof in respect of the common design and organisation of a demonstration rests with the officials or authorities initiating the relevant civil, criminal or administrative proceedings. The opposite approach would encroach excessively upon the constitutional freedom of peaceful assembly.

- Overall, the court declared section 7(1.1) of the Act compatible with the Russian Constitution.

Judge Kazantsev expressed a separate opinion that can be summarised as follows. Being the least challenging in terms of security/safety and entailing no movement or use of loud-speaker devices, a solo static demonstration does not pose any real threat to public safety or State security. Nor does it create any serious danger to health, property or morals. It does not encroach upon one’s freedom of movement. Therefore, it is not subject to a notification requirement, which is related to the fact that the mere presence of a relatively large number of people in the same place, in itself, carries certain risks and thus the organiser of a public event should receive assistance for such an event. The authorities have the statutory aims of ensuring, together with the event’s organiser, public safety and security of people present, and providing urgent medical assistance. The observance of a fifty-metre distance between solo demonstrators excludes, in all cases, a possible lack of balance between the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of movement, even where solo demonstrators have common goals and organisation. Judicial assessment is an important safeguard. However, the current statutory framework does not prevent the arrest of a person who is not a member of an organisation and carries out a solo demonstration that happens to be close to another demonstration that is wholly unrelated to him. The ensuing judicial review can only confirm the absence of any common design and prevent any further violation of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. However, such a review cannot make up for the damage suffered on account of the disruption of a demonstration, arrest and court proceedings. Overall, the statutory provision under review is aimed at impeding solo demonstrations.

The regional statutes specifying the distance between solo demonstrators vary. For instance, in the Rostov Region, regional law no. 146-3C of 27 September 2004 complements the federal regulations on public gatherings. In December 2012 that law was amended to provide that the distance between solo demonstrations should be no less than fifty metres (section 2 of the law).

Since January 2013 a similar law in Moscow (law no. 10 of 4 April 2007) has provided for the same distance and specifies that simultaneous demonstrations should be treated as solo demonstrations provided that they do not have a common goal and organisation (section 2.3).

In the Tatarstan Republic, law no. 91-ZRT of 25 December 2012 provides that the relevant distance should be no less than 30 metres (section 8).

In the Sverdlovsk Region, law no. 102-FZ of 7 December 2012 provides that the distance should attain or exceed forty metres (section 5).

In the Astrakhan Region, law no. 80/2012-FZ of 27 November 2012 sets the relevant distance at no less than twenty metres (section 4).

In the Tomsk Region, law no.195-OZ of 8 November 2012 sets this distance at no less than 30 metres (section 2).

2. Liability for violation of the rules on public events

(a) Termination of a public event

The organiser of a public event must put an end to it where the event’s participants have committed unlawful actions (section 5 of the Public Events Act). A designated official of an executive authority or a municipal authority is empowered to take a decision to stop the public event (section 13). A designated law-enforcement officer is empowered to bar access to the event where the maximum capacity of the venue has been exceeded; or to order the event organiser or its participants to comply with the rules for holding public events (section 14).

If the event participants breached the regulations (правопорядок) while causing no threat to life or limb, the designated executive or municipal official may require the event organiser to remedy the violation (section 15). If that requirement is not complied with, the executive or municipal official may suspend the event pending the remedying of the violation. If the violation is not remedied, the event should be ended. The grounds for ending a public event are as follows: a real threat to life, limb or property; unlawful acts committed by the event participants; and the organiser’s wilful violation of the regulations concerning the running of a public event (section 16).

The procedure for putting an end to a public event is as follows: the designated executive or municipal official orders the organiser to stop the event, providing the reasons for stopping the event; the official sets a time‑limit for complying with the order to end the event; if the organiser does not comply, the official himself or herself announces the end of the event and affords time to disperse (section 17). Where the order to stop the event has not been complied with, the police should take the necessary measures to stop the event. Failure to comply with lawful orders of the police or disobedience (that is, resistance) on the part of the event participants entails liability under other provisions of Russian law.

(b) Prosecution for an administrative offence

Article 3.1 of the CAO defines an administrative penalty as a measure of responsibility for an administrative offence, with the purpose of preventing new offences by the offender or others.

Chapter 20 of the CAO lists administrative offences that impinge upon public order and public safety (общественный порядок и общественная безопасность).

(i) Before 2012

Before June 2012 a breach of the statutory procedure for organising a public event by its organiser was punishable by a fine of up to twenty minimum wages (Article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO), RUB 2,000.

A breach of the statutory procedure for the running of a public event was punishable by a fine of up twenty minimum wages for organisers and up to ten minimum wages (RUB 1,000) for participants (Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO).

(ii) Since 2012

Since June 2012, Article 3.5 of the CAO has provided that an individual could not be fined more than RUB 5,000, except for an offence under Articles 5.38, 20.2, 20.2.2, 20.18 and 20.25, for which the fine could be up to RUB 300,000.

On 8 June 2012 Article 20.2 of the CAO was redrafted as follows:

- A breach of the procedure for organising or running a public event by an organiser became punishable by a fine of between RUB 10,000 and RUB 20,000 or up to forty hours of community work (Article 20.2 § 1).

- The organisation or running of a public event without notifying the competent public authority became punishable by a fine of between RUB 20,000 and RUB 30,000 or up to fifty hours of community work (Article 20.2 § 2).

- Stricter penalties were introduced for the above actions or inaction where they obstructed pedestrians or traffic, or caused damage to health or property (Article 20.2 §§ 3 and 4). Separate offences concerned violations by an event participant of the procedure for running the event (§ 5) and where such violations caused damage to health or property (§ 6).

In its ruling no. 4-P of 14 February 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the minimum statutory fines unconstitutional (in particular under Article 20.2 of the CAO) in so far as the relevant provisions of the CAO did not allow the imposition of a fine below the minimum amount. The court held that any fine should take into account the nature of the offence, the financial situation of the person concerned or other factors relating to the individualisation of the penalty and to the requirements of proportionality and fairness. The Constitutional Court required the legislator to amend the CAO accordingly. Until that time, the courts were instructed to consider the possibility of imposing a fine below the minimum statutory fine.

Under Article 20.2.2 (1) of the CAO it was an offence to organise a non-public event consisting of the simultaneous presence or movement of people in a public place if this caused a violation of the order or health and safety rules or caused an impediment to pedestrians or impeded access to transport facilities or buildings.

(c) Supreme Court of Russia

On 27 June 2013 the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia issued ruling no. 21 concerning application of the European Convention by the courts of general jurisdiction.

Pursuant to Article 55 of the Russian Constitution a restriction on an individual’s human rights or freedoms must be based on a federal statute, pursue a socially important and legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society (that is to say to be proportionate to the above aim). Failure to comply with one of the above criteria would entail a conclusion of a violation of one’s rights or freedoms and must be protected by way of a judicial procedure (section 5 of the ruling).

During examination of cases courts are required to justify the necessity of the restrictions on an individual’s human rights and freedoms in the circumstances of a given case. Courts must take into account that such restrictions are only permitted where there are relevant and sufficient reasons for the restrictions and provided that a balance is struck between legitimate interests of the person concerned and the rights of others or the public interest (section 8 of the ruling).

In the case of a violation of an individual’s rights or freedoms the award in respect of non-pecuniary damage should correspond to the amount of just satisfaction awarded by the European Court for a similar violation (section 9).

3. Other relevant legislation

(a) CAO

A person can be absolved from prosecution for an administrative offence by way of receiving an oral warning only, in view of the low negative impact (малозначительность) of the offence (Article 2.9 of the CAO).

Refusal to obey a lawful order or request from a police officer is punishable by an administrative fine of RUB 500 to RUB 1,000, or up to fifteen days’ administrative detention (Article 19.3 of the CAO).

Non-payment of an administrative fine constitutes an administrative offence punishable by a doubled fine or up to fifteen days’ administrative detention (Article 20.25 of the CAO).

When legislating on the issue of responsibility for an administrative offence consisting in a violation of regulations prescribed by statutes or other general legal provisions, the legislator has discretion to decide, with due regard to the essence of the public relations to protect, whether responsibility arises solely on account of non-observance of the relevant regulation or also on account of any actual damage or (real) threat of such damage to the protected object, for instance life or limb, or to property (Constitutional Court, ruling no. 12-P of 18 May 2012, paragraph 4.1, assessing the legislation as it was before the amendments adopted in June 2012). Under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, responsibility is not conditional on actual damage or consequences: the mere fact of failing to notify the competent public authority of a public event constitutes an unlawful and punishable omission (ibid.; see also decision no. 485-O of 4 April 2013, paragraph 2.1). This omission creates a risk of a violation of others’ rights and freedoms, because it makes it more difficult for the authorities to take adequate measures to prevent or put an end to violations of public order and public safety (decision no. 485-O).

(b) Another legislation

Section 10 of the Olympic Games Act of 2007 (Federal Law no. 310-FZ of 1 December 2007) provides that during the Olympic Games the President of Russia may put in place reinforced security measures, including a limitation on holding public events that are not related to the Games.

4. Fairness and procedural guarantees in cases concerning administrative offences

Article 1.5 of the CAO provides for the presumption of innocence. An official or court dealing with an administrative-offence case should establish whether the person concerned is guilty or innocent (ruling no. 5 of 24 March 2005 by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia).

The Constitutional Court stated that Articles 118 § 2 and 123 § 3 of the Russian Constitution provided that the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure should apply in court proceedings, including under the CAO. Although those constitutional guarantees applied in cases examined (directly) by the courts, they did not apply in cases examined by non-judicial authorities or officials (decision no. 630-O of 23 April 2013 of the Russian Constitutional Court). However, the person concerned may seek judicial review of their decisions; such review proceedings should provide for equality of arms and adversarial procedure (ibid.).

Article 25.1 § 4 of the CAO provides that a person prosecuted under the CAO is entitled to study the case-file material, make submissions, adduce evidence, lodge motions and challenges, and have legal assistance. The Constitutional Court considered that those guarantees enabled the person concerned to refute, in the course of court proceedings, the information contained in the case file, for instance in the offence record (протокол об административном правонарушении), thereby exercising his or her right to judicial protection based on the principle of adversarial procedure (decision no. 925-O-O of 17 June 2010).

In relation to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Constitutional Court held that requiring or allowing a court to take over the functions normally attributed to a prosecuting authority contradicted Article 123 of the Constitution and impeded independent and impartial administration of justice (see, among others, ruling no. 16-P of 2 July 2013).

Article 30.6 of the CAO provides for appeal against a first-instance judgment. The appellate court is required to examine the existing and new evidence in the case file, and to provide a full review of the case.

5. Escorting a person to the police station, arrest and other coercive or preventive measures

(a) Police powers

Under the old Police Act (Federal Law no. 1036-I of 18 April 1991) the police were empowered to carry out administrative arrests.

Under the current Police Act (Federal Law no. 3-FZ of 7 February 2011) the police are empowered to check an individual’s identity documents where there are reasons to suspect the person of a criminal offence or if his or her name is on a wanted persons list, where there is a reason for prosecuting him or her for an administrative offence, or where there are other grounds, prescribed by federal law, for arresting the person (section 13 of the Act). The police are also empowered to take the person to the police station in order to decide whether he or she should be arrested if it cannot be done on the spot. The police are empowered to take fingerprints, to take photographs or make video recordings of an arrestee suspected of a criminal offence or if it was not possible to properly identify the arrestee during the arrest (section 13 of the Act).

(b) Administrative escorting and administrative arrest

Article 27.1 of the CAO provides a number of measures, including administrative escorting (административное доставление) and administrative arrest (административный арест), which may be used for the purpose of putting an end to an administrative offence, to establish the offender’s identity, to draw up the administrative-offence record if this cannot be done on the spot, or for the purpose of timely and correct examination of the case and enforcement of a decision taken in it.

Article 27.2 defines “administrative escorting” as a procedure by which an offender is compelled to follow the competent officer for the purposes of drawing up an administrative-offence record when it cannot be done on the spot. The Constitutional Court has held that this measure of compulsion, which amounts to temporary restriction of a person’s freedom of movement, should be applied only when it is necessary and within short timeframes. Referring to the notion of “deprivation of liberty” under Article 5 of the Convention, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the relevant criteria relating to Article 5 of the Convention are “fully applicable” to the measure (Decision no. 149-O-O of 17 January 2012).

In exceptional circumstances relating to the need for a proper and expedient examination of an administrative case, the person concerned may be placed under “administrative arrest”. The arrestee should be informed of his rights and obligations; this notification should be mentioned in the arrest record. The duration of such administrative arrest must not normally exceed three hours. Administrative arrest for a longer period, not exceeding forty-eight hours, is permissible only for persons subject to administrative proceedings concerning an offence punishable by administrative detention or offences involving unlawful crossing of the Russian border. This term starts to run as soon as the person has been escorted to the police station in accordance with Article 27.2 of the Code (Article 27.5 of the Code). The Constitutional Court has ruled that such arrest amounts to “deprivation of liberty” as it is understood by the European Court within the meaning of Article 5 §1(c) of the Convention (Ruling no. 9-P of 16 June 2009).

COMMON QUESTIONS

For all applications:

1. In view of the Court’s findings in the judgment of Novikova and Others v. Russia (nos. 25501/07, 57569/11, 80153/12, 5790/13 and 35015/13, 26 April 2016):

(a) Do the circumstances of each case (for instance, the termination of a demonstration, taking to the police station, detention there and prosecution under the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”), taken separately or cumulatively, disclose an “interference” under Article 10 § 1 or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? Was such interference related to the time, place or manner of the expression/expressive conduct and/or to its contents?

(b) Was this interference prescribed by law? In particular:

As regards the termination of demonstrations: What was the legal basis for the police order to terminate the demonstration? Was it lawful for a law‑enforcement officer to stop the demonstration in the absence of a refusal to comply with a similar order issued earlier by a designated executive official or municipal official (sections 13-17 of the Public Events Act)? Did the absence of a prior notification amount to “violation of the law” on the part of “participants” or “a wilful breach of the regulations concerning the running of a public event” (section 16) on the part of an event organiser?

As regards taking to police stations and detention there: Why was it impracticable to draw up on the spot an administrative-offence record? What were the “exceptional circumstances” to justify the use of the arrest procedure? Did the domestic authorities establish the existence of such circumstances?

(c) Was the interference shown to pursue a legitimate aim?

(d) Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? Were the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the interference “relevant and sufficient”? Did the national authorities apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? Did the authorities base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts?

2. Assuming that certain applicants did organise or did participate in an a group event, did the authorities’ putting an end to (their participation in) such a group event, the taking of the applicants to the police station and, in some cases, their prosecution on the sole grounds of failing to observe the notification requirement constitute a disproportionate interference with their freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention? When finding the applicants guilty and when imposing penalties such as fines or administrative detention, did the courts ponder the seriousness of the offence and the consequences it entailed, such as serious obstruction of traffic, damage to property or similar?

Regarding application nos. 36801/09, 10970/12, 37513/15, 37528/15 and 56516/15 only:

3. Were the applicants “deprived of liberty” within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention? Did such deprivation of liberty fall within the scope of one or several subparagraphs of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the entire period (complained of) lawful and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? In particular:

- Was the action properly recorded as “escorting to the police station” (административное доставление) (Articles 27.1 and 27.2 of the CAO)? Was it necessary for the relevant statutory purpose (the drawing up of an administrative-offence record because this could not be done on the spot) and reasonable as to its duration (decision no. 149-O-O of 17 January 2012 by the Constitutional Court)?

- Was the action properly recorded as “administrative arrest” (административное задержание) under Article 27.3 of the CAO? Were the statutory requirement of “exceptional circumstances” and the statutory purpose (the need for a proper and expedient examination of the administrative case) (see ruling no. 9-P of 16 June 2009 by the Constitutional Court) respected?

- Was the action properly recorded as “escorting” (that is to say to the police station or another site) under section 11 of the old Police Act (Federal Law no. 1036-I of 18 April 1991) or section 13 of the current Police Act (Federal Law no. 3-FZ of 7 February 2011)? Was the deprivation of liberty effected in order to decide whether the applicants should be formally arrested, as it had not been possible to take such a decision on the spot?

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

34310/13:

In so far as pertinent for the assessment under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, was the applicant convicted twice for the same facts relating to his presumed organisation of a public event and the refusal to cease it?

53545/13:

1.1. Was the applicant’s case examined by courts which were “established by law” as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

1.2. Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the same situation pertain on appeal?

2. Assuming that the applicant did participate in a group event, did the circumstances of the case disclose a violation of Article 10 or 11 of the Convention, in particular bearing in mind the alleged spontaneous nature of the assembly and the absence of any specific regulations addressing this context under Russian law (see Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, §§ 36-38, 7 October 2008)?

56703/13:

Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the same situation pertain on appeal?

68537/13:

In so far as relevant for the assessment under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, was it foreseeable that (i) section 6(4) of the Public Events Act (prohibition from hiding his or her face during a “public event” as it is defined in section 2(1) of the Act) would be applied to a solo demonstration, and (ii) the wearing of a balaclava by a solo demonstrator would invariably amount to an offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO, and (iii) it would be a basis for the applicant’s arrest?

66883/14:

Did each applicant have a fair trial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

- Was it appropriate to rely on an offence record as a piece of evidence or on testimonies or reports from Z., B., S., Be., D. and Sh.?

- Did the appellate courts hold oral hearings? Did they hear any submissions or representations? Was an oral hearing necessary in the applicants’ cases in order to comply with Article 6 of the Convention? If yes, was there a violation of this Article on this account?

73423/14:

1. Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention because of the unavailability of legal assistance at the trial and the defence’s absence from the appeal hearing?

2. Were the restrictions of the applicant’s rights and freedoms (by way of delegated powers under the Olympic Games Act of 2007) in compliance with Article 55 of the Constitution? Was it a foreseeable application of Russian law (compare Pasko v. Russia, no. 69519/01, §§ 71-78, 22 October 2009)? Did a solo demonstration fall within the notion of a “public event” under the Public Events Act or other legislation? In view of the above, was there a breach of the lawfulness requirement under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention?

23814/15:

Did the applicant have a fair trial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the precipitated pace of the trial, the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the same situation pertain on appeal?

37513/15, 37528/15:

Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the same situation pertain on appeal?

56516/15:

As regards the events of 11 May 2015:

1. Were there violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the four applicants’ conditions of detention on 11 and 12 May 2015?

2. Concerning Ms Koroleva and Ms Sheveleva only:

- Were Ms Koroleva and Ms Sheveleva convicted, inter alia, for the content of any statements, namely the utterances against the government? If yes, were such convictions lawful and proportionate under Article 10 of the Convention ?

- Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial courts in their cases entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the same situation pertain on appeal in both cases?

As regards the events of 31 October 2015:

Did Ms Ryabikova have a fair trial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

- Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against her and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against her, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?

- Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the same situation pertain on appeal?

56957/15:

Did the applicant have a fair trial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected? Was she able to examine witnesses against her and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against her, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?

2707/16:

Did the swiftness of the trial proceedings and the absence of a prosecuting party in the case entail a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? Did the appeal or reviewing court remedy the alleged shortcomings?

4954/16:

Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? Did the appeal or reviewing court remedy the shortcomings that were allegedly present during the trial?

5206/16:

Was there a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because of the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly active role of the court? Did the same situation pertain on appeal?

16159/16:

Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, in particular on account of the lack of a prosecuting party in the case, the lack of a possibility to examine the police officers at the trial and the refusal to adjourn the appeal hearing?

29674/16:

Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, in particular on account of the lack of a prosecuting party and the active role of the court; the documents compiled by the police being treated as evidence and the absence of an opportunity to examine the arresting officers?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence 

36801/09

21/02/2008

Vladimir Yakovlevich KAPUSTIN

12/09/1945

Yekaterinburg

10970/12

18/01/2012

Yakov Aleksandrovich GRIGORYEV

26/12/1984

Svetlogorsk

Kamola Dilmuratovna IGAMBERDIEYVA

25/10/1989

Kaliningrad

34310/13

08/05/2013

Aleksey Nikolayevich MANDRIGELYA

18/09/1989

Krasnodar

53545/13

27/07/2013

Tatyana Andreyevna MAKAROVA

18/01/1989

Moscow

56703/13

19/08/2013

Aleksandra Yuryevna ASTAKHOVA

01/01/1985

Moscow

Yelizaveta Antonovna FOKHT-BABUSHKINA

01/01/1994

Moscow

68537/13

23/10/2013

Naylya Razinovna IBRAGIMOVA

19/09/1988

Syktyvkar

66883/14

18/09/2014

Akhmad Dzhavid Abdullovich KHAKIM

27/02/1988

Sochi

Olga Petrovna Noskovets

28/04/1976

Sochi

73423/14

05/11/2014

Akhmad Dzhavid Abdullovich KHAKIM

27/02/1988

Sochi

23814/15

07/05/2015

Viktoriya Sergeyevna MUCHNIK

01/05/1968

Tomsk

37513/15

03/07/2015

Aleksandr Yuryevich RYKLIN

04/05/1958

Moscow

37528/15

03/07/2015

Sergey Aleksandrovich SHAROV

27/09/1956

Moscow

52936/15

15/10/2015

Aleksey Nikolayevich LOBANOV

18/03/1984

St Petersburg

56516/15

06/11/2015

Irina Leonidovna KALMYKOVA

10/09/1960

Kogalym

Yelena Gennadyevna KOROLEVA

17/06/1964

Moscow

Anastasiya Mikhaylovna SHEVELEVA

19/04/1974

Moscow

Mariya Aleksandrovna RYABIKOVA

19/04/1974

Moscow

56957/15

26/10/2015

Darya Vladimirovna KOSTROMINA

06/01/1987

Moscow

2707/16

18/12/2015

Mikhail Viktorovich MORDOVIN

26/08/1956

Seversk

4954/16

31/12/2015

Anna Yakovlevna PASTUKHOVA

Yekaterinburg

5206/16

31/12/2015

Sergey Arlenovich ZYKOV

05/02/1972

Syktyvkar

16159/16

15/03/2016

Khabib Khabibovich POGOSYAN

01/05/1988

Troitsk

29674/16

16/05/2016

Leonid Davidovich DUBROVO

18/08/1957

Troitsk

[1] EUR 540 at the time

[2] In his further submissions to the Court, one of Ms Koroleva’s representatives notes, however, that she was present on the spot in order to meet with a Mr P.; that she did not take part in any demonstration but was talking to P. at a distance from the other applicants.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy