Published on 5 February 2024
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 38147/18
Maksim Viktorovich MAKHAYEV and Others against Russia
and 18 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
38147/18*
26/07/2018
Maksim Viktorovich MAKHAYEV
1989
Anna Nikolayevna MAKHAYEVA
1993
Andrey Viktorovich PAVLOVSKIY
1976
Sergey Trofimovich Maryin
Saransk
29/01/2018, 11 a.m.
29/01/2018, 6.30 p.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)
38258/18
02/08/2018
Oleg Alekseyevich ALEKSEYEV
1995
Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov
Kazan
27/01/2018, 6.40 p.m.
29/01/2018, 2.15 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for distributing flyers with calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 28/01/2018 against participation in elections; final decision: Kaliningrad Regional Court, 02/02/2018, detention of 20 days
38657/18*
02/08/2018
Nikolay Nikolayevich LYASKIN
1982
Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov
Vilnius
28/01/2018,
2.00 p.m.
05/05/2018, 2.20 p.m.
28/01/2018, 9.55 p.m., raised on appeal
07/05/2018, 2.18 p.m., raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 02/02/2018 and 31/05/2018,
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, final decision: Moscow City Court, 31/05/2018,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - 1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 28/01/2018 against elections, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/02/2018, detention of 15 days
2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 05/05/2018 against re-election of the President, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, 31/05/2018, detention of 10 days
2740/19*
29/12/2018
Lyudmila Viktorovna ULYUFSEN
1955
Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin
Moscow
04/07/2018, 6.20 p.m.
09/07/2018, 8.55 p.m.
10/07/2018, 9.10 p.m.
06/07/2018, until court hearing
10/07/2018, until court hearing
11/07/2018, until court hearing
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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 20/07/2018, 14/08/2018 and 18/10/2018
13415/19
25/02/2019
Yuriy Sergeyevich KUZMINYKH
1978
Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov
Yekaterinburg
09/09/2018
11/09/2018
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others,
§§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , 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: 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 decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 21/09/2018 and 27/09/2018,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 09/09/2018 against pension reform, published on Facebook; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 27/09/2018, detention of 30 days,
Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO for disobeying police officers on 09/09/2018, day of the unauthorized manifestation; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 21/09/2018, detention of 5 days,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
31922/19*
29/05/2019
Stefaniya Vladimirovna VETROVA
1988
Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin
Moscow
09/08/2018
09/08/2018, raised on appeal on 05/02/2019
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 - final decision: Moscow City Court, 05/02/2019
14908/20*
07/03/2020
Nikita Vladimirovich ZAYTSEV
1997
Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko
Mytishchi
23/09/2019, 6.10 p.m.
02/11/2021,
8.00 p.m.
04/11/2020,
3.00 p.m.
24/09/2019, 9.20 a.m.
03/11/2021, 10.10 a.m.
05/11/2020, 2.40 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: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , 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 - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019, 09/11/2020 and 03/11/2021,
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 officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based; final decisions: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019, 09/11/2020 and 03/11/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 27/07/2019 in support of opposition candidates for election, published in Telegram; final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019, detention of 15 days,
Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO for participation in unauthorised manifestation against abuses by the police on 04/11/2020, final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/11/2020, detention of 15 days
31917/21*
09/06/2021
Georgiy Valentinovich ALBUROV
1989
Vladlen Kornelevich Los
Vilnius
21/01/2021,
9.00 p.m.
22/01/2021, 2.30 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/01/2021,
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,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/01/2021, detention of 10 days
36731/21*
07/07/2021
Vadim Leonidovich KOBZEV
1997
Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo
Barnaul
22/01/2021
23/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal
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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Rostov Regional Court, 29/01/2021,
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 and an accusation witness on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,
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
38177/21*
21/07/2021
Sofiya Yevgenyevna KAPINOSOVA
1998
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev
Vilnius
23/01/2021, 2.30 p.m.
23/04/2021, 11.45 a.m.
24/01/2021, 12.30 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal
23/04/2021, 4.35 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both proceedings - final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 02/02/2021 and 27/04/2021,
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 in both sets of proceedings,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - 1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 02/02/2021, detention of 9 days;
2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, on 27/04/2021, detention of 15 days
42344/21*
31/07/2021
Tatyana Gennadyevna KOROVINA
1955
Anastasiya Alekseyevna SHVAREVA
1998
Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA
1975
Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Ms Korovina
31/01/2021, 1.50 p.m.
Ms Uvarkina
31/01/2021, 12.15 p.m.
Ms Shvareva
31/01/2021, 1 p.m.
31/01/2021, 7.45 p.m., raised on appeal on 17/03/2021
31/01/2021, 5.00 p.m., raised on appeal on 23/06/2021
31/01/2021, 10.10 p.m., raised on appeal on 23/06/2021
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), 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) , 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)
43402/21*
02/08/2021
Anton Dmitriyevich LYKOV
1994
Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo
Barnaul
31/01/2021
01/02/2021, raised on appeal
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: Volgograd Regional Court, 07/04/2021,
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 police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy published in VKontakte; final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 07/04/2021, detention for 5 days,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention of five days imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
49520/21*
01/10/2021
Karina Mikhaylovna SHEYKINA
1988
Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov
Vilnius
31/01/2021
31/01/2021, raised on appeal
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Stavropol Regional Court, 07/04/2021,
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
34006/22*
24/06/2022
Margarita Aleksandrovna VAYNER
2002
Natalya Andreyevna Baranova
Moscow
25/02/2022,
5.00 p.m.
26/02/2022,
1.00 p.m., until court hearing
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/02/2022,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised anti-war protest on 25/02/2022, published on Twitter; final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/02/2022, detention of 7 days,
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
43486/22
21/08/2022
Yevgeniy Artemovich ZATEYEV
2001
Anastasiya Vladimirovna Pilipenko
St Petersburg
27/02/2022, 12.30 p.m.
28/02/2022, 11.10 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), 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 - final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 21/04/2022,
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,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised anti-war protest on 27/02/2022, published in VKontakte; final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 21/04/2022, detention of 9 days,
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
45170/22
09/09/2022
Olga Yaroslavovna MURAVYEVA
1988
Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova
St Petersburg
23/03/2022
25/03/2022, until court hearing, raised on appeal
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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 11/05/2022,
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,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate restriction of her freedom of expression on account of her conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for having published on 07/03/2022 on Youtube a video "No war. Appeal to women" considered by the authorities as constituting a call to participate in the Anti-war rally on 08/03/2022; final decision: Moscow City Court, 11/05/2022, fine of RUB 20,000
47684/22*
16/09/2022
Irina Mikhaylovna KUZMINA
1979
Yuliya Valeryevna Malinina
Moscow
17/02/2022, 3.40 p.m.
17/02/2022, 8.25 p.m., raised on appeal
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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/07/2022,
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
12055/23*
10/02/2023
Dmitriy Sergeyevich BATALIN
1995
Vitaliy Yuryevich GRYAZNOV
1982
Vitaliy Petrovich PODSIVAKA
1951
Natalya Andreyevna Baranova
Moscow
Mr Podsivaka:
10/07/2022,
1.00 p.m.
10/07/2022, 2.15 p.m., raised on appeal
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) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - Mr Batalin and Mr Gryaznov were charged under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for having published a series of anti-war commentaries in Vkontakte social network. On 25/08/2022 Mr Batalin was sentenced by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Yaroslavl to an administrative fine of RUB 30,000 (upheld by the Yaroslavl Regional Court on 10/10/2022). On 16/06/2022 Mr Gryaznov was sentenced by the Tambovskiy District Court of the Tambov Region to an administrative fine of RUB 30,000 (upheld by the Tambov Regional Court on 10/10/2022).
On 16/06/2022 Mr Podsivaka took part in a solo piquet. He was charged under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO and sentenced by the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk to an administrative fine of RUB 30,000 (upheld by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 12/10/2022)
34239/23*
16/09/2021
Kirill Aleksandrovich SONIN
1997
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev
Vilnius
31/01/2021
01/02/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal
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: Rostov Regional Court, 31/03/2021