CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 27 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF4E2E8B1 { height:46.8pt } .sF7C9EEC2 { height:131.05pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF KHAMROYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 1770/20 and 20 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 April 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khamroyev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 April 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies having taken place in Moscow. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2   others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023).   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. Some applicants also made the same complaints under Article   10; however, these complaints fall to be examined under Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova , no. 33482/06, 31   March 2009). 9.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article   35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 13.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in its case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121 ‑ 23, 10   April 2018; Kalyapin v. Russia , no. 6095/09, § 76, 23   July 2019; and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of the organisers or participants of public events; Teslenko and Others v. Russia , nos.   49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 72-74 and 81-82, 5 April 2022, concerning in particular administrative escorting to and/or detention in a police station beyond three hours for non-custodial offences, without substantiating the impossibility to compile an offence report at the rally; Karelin v. Russia , no.   926/08, 20   September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO); Novikova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-215, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures against solo-demonstrators). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Having regard to its findings above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings in their cases. 15.     In applications nos.   1770/20, 7113/20 and 7148/20 the applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation. It follows that this part of applications nos. 1770/20, 7113/20 and 7148/20 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 17.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints concerning the dispersal of the public assemblies and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article   6 of the Convention about other aspects of the fairness of the administrative ‑ offence proceedings and finds the remainder of applications nos.   1770/20, 7113/20 and 7148/20 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the public assemblies; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the reminder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 April 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Name and Date of the public event   Administrative charges Penalty Final decision Moscow City Court Date Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs, and expenses (in euros) [1]     1770/20 18/12/2019 Bakhrom Mardonovich KHAMROYEV 1963 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019       Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                   fine of RUB   20,000                 04/10/2019                     Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 2.00 p.m. on 05/08/2019 (the applicant remained detained even after the record of administrative offence had been drawn up);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/10/2019;   Art. 10 (2)- disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. Picketing on 17/04/2019 in Moscow; fine of RUB   15,000; final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/08/2019   5,000     2596/20 11/12/2019 Matvey Mikhaylovich BAGROV 1991 Savelyev Anton Alekseyevich Domodedovo Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 08/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 6.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 01.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the time indicated in the record was at variance with the real time of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019   4,000     7113/20 25/01/2020 Nikolay Nikolayevich SUKHOVEY 1978 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   10/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 08/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019   3,000     7144/20 25/01/2020 Andrey Anatolyevich ROMASHKIN 1991 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   10/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 30/08/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.45 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. on 10/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 30/08/2019   4,000     7148/20 25/01/2020 Sergey Vladimirovich KASHIRIN 1989 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   10/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 12/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/09/2019   3,000     9493/20 12/02/2020 Aleksey Yuryevich PARAKHIN 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019     Manifestation against the pension reform   Moscow,   09/09/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO               Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO               Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO community service of 50   hours             detention of 15   days               fine of RUB   10,000 30/09/2019                 12/08/2019                 04/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court, 12/08/2019, 30/09/2019 and 04/09/2019;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: 1) from 4.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018 to 00.30   a.m. on 10/09/2018 (while the administrative offence record was drawn up only on 20/09/2018), 2) from 4.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 00.30   a.m. on 28/07/2019 (while the administrative offence record was drawn up only on 13/08/2019), 3) from 2.40 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 2.30   p.m. on 05/08/2019 (the applicant remained in detention event after the administrative offence record was drawn up) 6,000     9501/20 12/02/2020   Arsen Rimovich SALIMOV 1995   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow   Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   administrative detention of 7   days   12/08/2019   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.45 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 5.50 p.m. on 05/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 12/08/2019   5,000         9506/20 12/02/2020 Mikhail Ivanovich KORESHKOV 1979 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000   18/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 4.30 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 4.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/09/2019   4,000     10722/20 07/02/2020 Sergey Mikhaylovich MARKOV 1961 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 2.55 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019; no report on the applicant’s administrative arrest was drawn up;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/10/2019   4,000   10745/20 07/02/2020 Sergey Mikhaylovich BOBYSHKIN 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   18,000 18/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019; no report on the applicant’s administrative arrest was drawn up;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/11/2019   4,000   10751/20 22/02/2020 Daniil Ruslanovich RAZZHIVIN 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 16/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 5.30 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 2.30 a.m. on 04/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 16/09/2019   4,000   10764/20 22/02/2020 Artur Serezhayevich KHACHATRYAN 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 06/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 8.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 4.30 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the applicant spent more than 3   hours in the police van before having been brought to the police station;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/09/2019   4,000   11284/20 07/02/2020 Aleksey Igorevich SAMARIN 1989 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 04/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 02.40 p.m. to 10.40   p.m. on 03/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 04/09/2019   4,000   11293/20 07/02/2020 Dmitriy Vladimirovich VILSHANSKIY 1991 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 06/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 3.45 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 0.00 a.m. on 04/08/2019; the applicant spent more than 3   hours in the police van before having been brought to the police station; the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/11/2019   4,000   14213/20 05/03/2020 Dmitriy Yuryevich VESYUTOV 1985 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 06/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 04.05 p.m. to 9.50 p.m. on 03/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/09/2019   4,000   14215/20 05/03/2020 Aleksey Sergeyevich TETYUYEV 1977 Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019       Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   Moscow   23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000                 fine of RUB   20,000 06/09/2019                   01/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: 1) from 5.45 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. on 03/08/2019 and 2) from 01.50 p.m. to 6.00   p.m. on 23/01/2021; in both cases no record of the applicant’s administrative arrest was drawn up;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court, 06/09/2019 and 01/06/2021   5,000   28052/20 26/06/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich VOLKOV 1984 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of I.   Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 Article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000             fine of RUB   15,000 08/06/2020                 28/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”: 1) from 01.00 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. on 12/06/2019, and 2) from 2.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decisions: Moscow City Court, 28/11/2019 and 08/06/2020   5,000   28171/20 26/06/2020 Anton Vladimirovich ZHDANOV 1992 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 28/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 02.10 p.m. to 10.20   p.m. on 03/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019; no report on the applicant’s administrative arrest was drawn up;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/10/2019   4,000   28303/20 03/07/2020 Vadim Nikolayevich SEVOSTYANOV 1987 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 02/12/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 03.35 p.m. to 11.40 p.m. on 03/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019; no report on the applicant’s administrative arrest was drawn up;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/12/2019   4,000   28306/20 03/06/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich VYRODOV 1974 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 06/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 03.25   p.m. to 10.55   p.m. on 03/08/2019, no report on the applicant’s administrative arrest was drawn up;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/11/2019 4,000   28334/20 03/07/2020 Yakov Semenovich DONCHENKO 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 14/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 03.30 p.m. on 03/08/2019 to 00.30 a.m. on 04/08/2019, while the record of administrative offence was drawn up only on 06/08/2019, no report on the applicant’s administrative arrest was drawn up;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative ‑ offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 14/11/2019 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.