Published on 5 February 2024
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 24712/21
Pavel Vladimirovich KUZMIN against Russia
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 11 January 2024, 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
24712/21*
19/04/2021
Pavel Vladimirovich KUZMIN
1992
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev
Vilnius
30/01/2021
6.35 p.m.
31/01/2021
unspecified time
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019);
detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018);
detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017).
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85,
20 September 2016),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Tver, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision Tver Regional Court 04/02/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019).
28055/21
17/05/2021
Vadim Valeryevich OSTANIN
1976
Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo
Barnaul
23/01/2021
9 a.m.
25/01/2021
8.30 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: 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 (see Karelin, cited above),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Barnaul, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision Altay Regional Court 29/01/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019).
33807/21
03/06/2021
Tatyana Vladimirovna GLINBERG
1992
Andrey Vasilyevich Sabinin
Stavropol
28/01/2021
10 a.m.
29/01/2021
unspecified time
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: 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 (see Karelin, cited above),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 31/01/2021 in Stavropol, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 5 days, final decision Stavropol Regional Court 01/02/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Martynyuk, cited above).
42732/21
06/08/2021
Anna Pavlovna VELLIKOK
1991
Fedor Yevgenyevich Sirosh
Moscow
29/01/2021
2.30 p.m.
30/01/2021
unspecified time
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: 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 (see Karelin, cited above),
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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 150-59, 18 December 2018),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO, detention for 14 days, final decision Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Martynyuk, cited above).
45346/21*
11/08/2021
Oleg Igorevich YEMELYANOV
1996
23/01/2021 2.05 p.m.
25/01/2021
2 p.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: 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 under Article 13.15. § 9 CAO (see Karelin, cited above),
Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - (1) conviction for making calls to participate in the rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Kazan, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 24/02/2021,
(2) conviction for posting a video on 10/02/2021 containing statements that rallies in support of A. Navalnyy that took place in January 2021 were peaceful and the authorities had no right to ban them, Article 13.15 § 9 CAO (spreading of false information), fine of RUB 30,000, final decision Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Martynyuk, cited above).
45486/21*
30/08/2021
Vitaliy Anatolyevich POLYAKOV
1983
Vladimir Valeryevich Vasin
Krasnoyarsk
23/01/2021
1 p.m.
23/01/2021
around 7 p.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).
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Krasnoyarsk, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 17/06/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above).
49393/21*
23/09/2021
Aleksey Igorevich KORABELNIKOV
1999
Feliks Yevgenyevich Vertegel
Krasnodar
22/01/2021
2.15 p.m.
23/01/2021
9 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: 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 (see Karelin, cited above),
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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Schatschaschwili, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Krasnodar, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 5 days, final decision Krasnodar Regional Court 24/03/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Martynyuk, cited above).
49641/21
14/09/2021
Yekaterina Vadimovna VERESHCHAGINA
1998
Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo
Barnaul
20/04/2021
11.30 p.m.
21/04/2021
12.30 p.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: 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 (see Karelin, cited above) - final decision was taken on 28/04/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court,
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 the trial the police officers and two eyewitnesses on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Schatschaschwili, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above - final decision was taken on 28/04/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court,
Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - the applicant’s arrest and detention on 20/04/2021-21/04/2021 prevented her from taking part in the rally to support; By the judgment of 21/04/2021 she was found guilty of minor hooliganism consisting of using rude language in public place and sentenced to 10 days’ detention, final decision was taken on 28/04/2021 by the Rostov Regional Court.
A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 (see Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 66-69, 11 October 2016),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Martynyuk, cited above).
52926/21*
22/10/2021
Kirill Valeryevich ISHUTIN
1984
Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov
Vilnius
21/04/2021
9.38 p.m.
22/04/2021
unspecified time
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: 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 under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, final decision Vladimir Regional Court 30/04/2021 (see Karelin, cited above),
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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Schatschaschwili, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above).
7496/22
30/12/2021
Liliya Fedorovna IVANOVA
1994
Vladimir Valeryevich Vasin
Krasnoyarsk
30/01/2021
7.50 p.m.
01/02/2021
10.15 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: 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 (see Karelin, cited above),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Krasnoyarsk, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 25,000, final decision Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 08/07/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above).
33529/22*
27/04/2022
Nikolay Yuryevich KAVKAZSKIY
1986
Natalya Andreyevna Baranova
Moscow
24/02/2022
11.10 p.m.
25/02/2022
1 p.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: 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 (see Karelin, cited above),
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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Schatschaschwili, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally against Russia’s military attack on Ukraine on 24/02/2022 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 6 days, final decision Moscow City Court 02/03/2022 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Martynyuk, cited above).
39700/22
05/08/2022
Danil Mikhaylovich SOFRONOV
2003
Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova
St Petersburg
25/02/2022
3.35 p.m.
26/02/2022
9.30 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: 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 (see Karelin, cited above),
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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Schatschaschwili, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rallies against Russia’s military attack on Ukraine on 25/02/2022 in several Russian cities, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 7 days, final decision Sverdlovsk Regional Court 06/04/2022 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above).
41001/22*
03/08/2022
Yuliya Nikolayevna KHARITONOVA
1976
Natalya Andreyevna Baranova
Moscow
01/03/2022
12.30 p.m.
01/03/2022
4.10 p.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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the appeal hearing in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin, cited above),
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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Schatschaschwili, and Murtazaliyeva, cited above),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - protest against Russia’s military attack on Ukraine on 24/02/2022 in Kaliningrad, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, final decision Kaliningrad Regional Court 05/04/2022 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above).
43626/22*
19/08/2022
Lyubov Mikhaylovna KORKINA
1967
13/03/2022
1 p.m.
13/03/2022
5 p.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).
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin, cited above),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - protest against Russia’s military attack on Ukraine on 13/03/2022 in Kirov, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, final decision Kirov Regional Court 28/04/2022 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva, cited above).