Regional Court   03/03/2022, Sverdlovsk Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – arrest and escorting to the police station on 18/11/2021, detention in excess of 3 hours (see Korneyeva

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

  54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 178-91, 10   April 2018, regarding the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal and immediate execution of a sentence of administrative detention; and Korneyeva v.

  54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 178-91, 10   April 2018, regarding the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal and immediate execution of a sentence of administrative detention; and Korneyeva v.

  54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10   April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.

As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Petr Korolev v.   Russia , no.   38112/04, §§ 43-45, 21 October 2010).

    The Court reiterates the principles developed in its case-law concerning the criterion of “significant disadvantage” (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; Giusti v.

scope of judicial review under Article 5 § 4 should be wide enough to bear on those conditions which are essential for the detention of a person to be lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see Koroleva

  36659/04, 1   June   2010, and Korolev v.   Russia   (dec.), no.   25551/05, 1   July   2010).

The assessment of this minimum level is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case (see Korolev , cited above, and Gagliano Giorgi v.

Bulgaria (no. 69855/01, §§ 83 ‑ 87 and 92, 7   January 2010) and Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria (no. 30383/03, §§ 29-44, 15   November 2011 ). 18.

xa0;   Relevant domestic law and practice The process of transformation of State and municipally-owned enterprises into companies in the beginning of the 1990s has been described in Sivova and Koleva

    On this Court’s position concerning the supervisory review procedure under the CComP prior to the amendments in 2014, see Kovaleva and Others v.

  54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10   April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.

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

  54381/08 and 5   others, §§   115-31, 10   April 2018; and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.

  54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10   April 2018; Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§   34-36, 8 October 2019; and Teslenko and Others v.

in support of Navalnyy in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 14/10/2021, restriction on freedom of movement     18289/22* 19/03/2022 Bulat Galiyevich BILALOV 1982 Yana Viktorovna Kovaleva

Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.