KARGASHIN v. RUSSIA and 23 other applications

Published on 26 June 2023

 

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 4815/18
Dmitriy Vladimirovich KARGASHIN against Russia
and 23 other applications

(see list appended)

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.

In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.

In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).

For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.

SUBJECT MATTER

The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).

 

APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Start date of unauthorised detention

End date of unauthorised detention

Specific defects

Other complaints under well-established case-law

   

4815/18

19/01/2018

Dmitriy Vladimirovich KARGASHIN

1989

 Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

26/03/2017,

4.50 p.m.

27/03/2017, 1.30 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121‑22, 10 April 2018)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 20/07/2017, fine of RUB 10,000;

 

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to examine police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based

   

6553/18*

24/01/2018

Igor Nikolayevich TYMCHUK

1964

 Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

26/03/2017

27/03/2017

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 24/07/2017, fine of RUB 15,000;

 

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - failure to obtain attendance of the witnesses (police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based)

   

9367/18*

16/02/2018

Pavel Vladimirovich BOSENKO

1996

 Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

26/03/2017, 4.07 p.m.

27/03/2017,

1 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

 

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/09/2017, fine of RUB 20,000

   

12053/18

03/03/2018

Aleksey Andreyevich KHARITONOV

1990

 Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

26/03/2017

26/03/2017

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/09/2017, fine of RUB 20,000;

 

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - failure to obtain attendance of the witnesses (police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based)

   

42476/18*

20/08/2018

Gabriyel Eduardovich ARUTYUNOV

1978

Tatyana Aleksandrovna Tretyak

Gelendzhik

20/07/2018, Supreme Court of the Adygeya Republic quashed the applicant’s conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the trial court

14/08/2018

Authorities’ failure to specify the period of pre-trial detention (see Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04,

 §§ 35-39, 17 June 2010)

 

   

2555/19*

29/12/2018

Sergey Gennadyevich VORONOV

1969

Ani Mesropovna Agagyulyan

Moscow

17/08/2018, 12.45 a.m.

17/08/2018, 10.33 a.m.

Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia,

nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

 

   

10336/20*

04/02/2020

Anna Viktorovna KITAYEVA

1985

Yekaterina Borisovna Belova

Moscow

13/11/2018

13/11/2018

Forced attendance without evidence of proper summons to appear or of failure by the applicant to comply without a valid excuse (see Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04,

§§ 91-96, 31 January 2017)

Art. 3 - torture or inhuman or degrading treatment - Ineffective investigation of the alleged rape and assault which took place on 28/04/2016. On 15/06/2016 the applicant reported the crimes. The criminal investigation was opened on 28/08/2018. It was subsequently discontinued for lack of corpus delicti (rape) and as time-barred (assault). The latest decision on the matter was taken by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir on 09/12/2021 refusal to restore the time-limit for appeal)

   

13493/21*

15/02/2021

Ilnur Mingaliyevich KABIROV

1987

Rushan Rafisovich Kabirov

Kazan

05/10/2020

05/10/2020

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

 

   

31403/21*

21/05/2021

Andrey Sergeyevich YAKOVLEV

1976

Kseniya Andreyevna Soroka

Moscow

13/12/2020

 

25/12/2020

Lack of legal basis for detention owing to the higher court’s omission to extend the applicant’s detention following the quashing of the first-instance court detention order or a conviction/appeal decision on conviction (see Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011). Breach of Code of Criminal Procedure in applying detention

 

 

35893/21*

01/07/2021

Vladlen Kornelevich LOS

1990

Vyacheslav Ilyich Gimadi

Vilnius

21/01/2021

22/01/2021

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 12/02/2021, 3 days’ administrative detention

 

40516/21

25/07/2021

Mansur Idrisovich GILMANOV

1990

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk

St Petersburg

21/01/2021, 6.55 p.m.

22/01/2021

Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 26/01/2021, 5 days’ administrative detention;

 

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his sentence of administrative arrest before the appeal judgment was delivered (see Tsvetkova and Others, §§ 179-91; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§ 38‑42)

 

 

 

40670/21

25/07/2021

Aliya Ramilevna ILYASOVA

1991

Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova

St Petersburg

23/01/2021

24/01/2021

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 04/02/2021, fine of RUB 10,000

 

47438/21*

11/09/2021

Aleksey Vladimirovich SOLOVYEV

1982

Rushan Rafisovich Kabirov

Kazan

08/05/2021,

3 p.m.

09/05/2021,

3 a.m.

Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017). Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

 

 

49278/21*

18/09/2021

Dmitriy Nikolayevich PANIN

1994

Yeva Viktorovna Levenberg

Moscow

31/01/2021

01/02/2021

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 18/03/2021, 10 days’ administrative detention

 

53222/21*

05/10/2021

Polina Igorevna RADETSKAYA

2002

Leonid Alkhasovich Abgadzhava

Moscow

31/01/2021

31/01/2021

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 06/04/2021 Moscow City Court, 3 days’ administrative detention

 

54888/21*

14/10/2021

Vladimir Ivanovich TOLCHENNIKOV

1987

 

Sergey Dmitriyevich BELIKOV

1987

Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak

Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou

23/01/2021

23/01/2021

Applicants taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

 

 

60627/21*

04/12/2021

Yuriy Vladimirovich PEREPECHAY

1988

Andrey Albertovich Bityutskiy

Khabarovsk

05/09/2019

06/09/2019

(The final decision on the matter was taken by the Khabarovsk Regional Court on 06/07/2021)

Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)

 

 

951/22*

15/12/2021

Aleksey Vladimirovich GORDIYENKO

1978

Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov

Taganrog

13/08/2020,

12.44 p.m.

15/08/2020, 3.30 p.m.

13/08/2020, 9.30 p.m.

15/08/2020, 5.50 p.m.

Forced attendance without evidence of proper summons to appear or of failure by the applicant to comply without a valid excuse (see Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017), Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018)

Art. 8 (1) - secret surveillance - Interception of telephone communications authorised, apparently on multiple occasions, by the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don from 06/07/2021 to 19/08/2021. The applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising the interception. As it transpires from decisions regarding other suspects in the criminal proceedings, the courts possibly did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”;

 

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of secret surveillance

 

35612/22

29/06/2022

Vladislav Aleksandrovich NEZNAMOV

1997

Aleksey Alekseyevich Levchenko

Rostov-on-Don

06/03/2022,

3.20 p.m.

07/03/2022, 10.00 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - 06/04/2022, at 5.20 p.m.; Pushkinskaya street, Rostov-on-Don; solo picket against the war in Ukraine (holding a banner with the text "No war! Do not trust propaganda". Administrative charges and penalty:

Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO (refusal to present an ID upon the police’s request), 10 days’ administrative detention. Final domestic court decision: Rostov Regional Court, 30/05/2022;

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 30/05/2022, 10 days’ administrative detention,

 

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to confront police officers who arrested him. He sought to challenge the official record stating that he had refused to produce an ID,

 

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his sentence – administrative arrest – before the appeal judgment was delivered (see Tsvetkova and Others, §§ 179-91; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§ 38-42)

 

36737/22*

30/06/2022

Nadezhda Viktorovna BOGDANOVA

1993

Aleksey Alekseyevich Levchenko

Rostov-on-Don

06/03/2022

07/03/2022

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 11/03/2022, 15 days’ administrative detention;

 

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the fact that the applicant refused to comply with an order of a police officer was established on the basis of the reports prepared by the arresting police officers. The applicant was unable to confront them in the court;

 

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving administrative detention before the court’s decision was considered on appeal and entered into force on 11/03/2022

 

38105/22*

14/07/2022

Semen Viktorovich ALEKSIN

1995

Aleksandra Nikolayevna Bayeva

Moscow

06/03/2022

06/03/2022

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Tyumen Regional Court on 20/04/2022, fine of RUB 30,000

 

39022/22*

29/07/2022

Valeriya Vladimirovna BUKREYEVA

2001

Irina Vladimirovna Gak

Rostov-on-Don

28/02/2022

01/03/2022

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 29/03/2022, 7 days’ administrative arrest;

 

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to question witnesses P. and K. on

 whose statements her conviction was based;

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court (Martynyuk,

§§ 37-43; Tsvetkova and others, §§ 179-91)

 

925/23

28/11/2022

Irina Sergeyevna STATIVKA

2001

Yuliya Valeryevna Malinina

Moscow

22/04/2022

22/04/2022

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – St Peterburg City Court, 28/07/2022; fine of RUB 30,000;

 

Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 22/04/2022 the applicant was found guilty of having made an anti-war graffiti on the facade of the building in St Petersburg with an anti-war statement (Z-za...). She was arrested on 22/04/2022 and an administrative offence record under Art. 20.3.3 of the CAO (Discredit war) was drawn up. On 01/06/2022, the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg convicted the applicant thereof and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 30,000. Upheld by the St Petersburg City Court on 28/07/2022.

 

5377/23*

26/01/2023

Emiliya Minibayevna PSHENICHNOVA

1986

Irina Vadimovna Sergeyeva

Moscow

12/05/2022,

6.45 p.m.

 13/05/2022

Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 27/09/2022, Moscow City Court, administrative detention of 10 days;

 

Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in unauthorised manifestation published in social network Twitter / 10 days of administrative detention/ Moscow City Court, 27/09/2022 (final);

 

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 13/05/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 179-91; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§ 38‑42)

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy