CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s4EFA53D { 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; font-style:italic } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s8FD6C652 { height:115.7pt } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF KOROTITSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 40328/21 and 19 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Korotitskiy and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 May 2024, 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 organisers or participants of public assemblies. 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 organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on 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, 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 .     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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 these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Glukhin v. Russia , no. 11519/20, 4 July 2023, concerning use of facial recognition technology by police ; Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention concerning other aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 7-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 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 under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 July 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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 of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     40328/21 30/07/2021 Yuriy Yuryevich KOROTITSKIY 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 23/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000         detention for 13 days Moscow City Court 25/05/2021       Moscow City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 6:00 p.m. on 23/01/2021 and 1:00 a.m. on 24/01/2021 detention in the police van between 11:45 p.m. on 02/02/2021 and 1:00 a.m. on 03/02/2021; escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 1:00 a.m. on 03/02/2021 and 10:00 a.m. on 04/02/2021;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of administrative proceedings (concerning the events of 23/01/2021 and 02/02/2021)     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 5,000     44511/21 17/08/2021 Damir Radikovich ISMAGILOV 1999 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021     article 20.2 § 8 of CAO           detention for 15 days           Moscow City Court 17/02/2021         Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention in the police van between 10:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. on 02/02/2021; escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 11:30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 and 7:00 p.m. on 03/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings, in both sets of proceedings   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 5,000     49912/21 28/09/2021 Yegor Vladimirovich SPIRIDONOV 1997 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 30/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 11:30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 and 7:00 p.m. on 03/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   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. 5,000     51192/21 17/09/2021 Igor Sergeyevich CHERVONNYY 1969 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 18/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 2:00 p.m. and 10:40 p.m. on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings         4,000     51264/21 08/10/2021 Yaroslav Gelyevich KAZEYEV 1982 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest at 11:00 a.m. on 02/02/2021 and detention in the police van for 3 hours, escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record on 02/02/2021 detention there until 5:00 p.m.;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     51385/21 30/09/2021 Ivan Viktorovich LUZIN 1981 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kaliningrad 31/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kaliningrad 21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000         detention for 21 days Kaliningrad Regional Court 06/04/2021     Kaliningrad Regional Court 30/04/2021 Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - 21/08/2020 / Kaliningrad / solo protest in support of Navalnyy / Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO / fine of RUB 10,000 / Kaliningrad Regional Court / 30/03/2021;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between: 1:00 p.m. and 4:50 p.m. on 31/01/2021; 7:45 p.m. on 21/04/2021 and 2:30 p.m. 22/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - (in connection with events of 21/04/2021) 5,000     51400/21 08/10/2021 Vladimir Viktorovich MURZIN 1969 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Tambov 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Tambov Regional Court 12/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 12:45 p.m. and 4:55 p.m. on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings       4,000     51438/21 08/10/2021 Irakliy Vakhtangovich BOGIYEV 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 31/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000         fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 10/02/2021       Moscow City Court 25/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 5:10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 and 2:30 a.m. on 01/02/2021; detention at the police station (where the applicant came upon insistence of a local police officer) for compiling an offence record between 9:30 a.m. and 1:30   p.m. on 12/05/2021 in connection with his participation in the rally on 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of administrative proceedings (concerning the events of 31/01/2021 and 21/04/2021);     Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - The applicant complained about the videorecording of his participating in the rally on 21/04/2021, facial recognition technique, storing and using those records against him in the administrative proceedings. 4,000     51469/21 08/10/2021 Aleksandr Pavlovich VASIN 1998 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Penza 23/01/2021     Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Penza 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work         30 hours of community work Penza Regional Court 08/04/2021       Penza Regional Court 15/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 1:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both administrative cases (concerning the events of 23/01/2021 and 31/01/2021)     4,000   53954/21 18/10/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich YEGOROV 1984 Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pskov 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 Pskov City Court 19/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   4,000   53963/21 18/10/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich MALOV 1978 Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Pskov 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Pskov Regional Court 17/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     3,500   54829/21 28/10/2021 Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich CHESHKIN 1981 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Perm 31/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Perm 21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000         fine of RUB 10,000 Perm Regional Court 09/06/2021     Perm Regional Court 02/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 1:00 p.m. and 6:20 p.m. on 31/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of administrative proceedings (in connection with events of 31/01/2021 and 21/04/2021)     4,000   55885/21 29/10/2021 Viktor Vladimirovich KUZNETSOV 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Kazan 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 12/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 12:40 p.m. on 31/01/2021 and 3:50 p.m. on 01/02/2021 4,000   59667/21 17/11/2021 Dmitriy Lvovich PYLKIN 1972 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg 31/01/2021   Anti-war rally   St Petersburg 25/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO           article 20.2.2 §   4 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000           detention for 20 days St   Petersburg City Court 18/05/2021         St Petersburg City Court 01/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 2:23 p.m. on 31/01/2021 and 2:30 a.m. on 01/02/2021 and 7:35 p.m. on 25/02/2022 and 1:30 p.m. on 26/02/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of administrative proceedings (in connection with events of 31/01/2021 and 21/04/2021) 5,000   59896/21 24/11/2021 Grigoriy Grigoryevich TREFILOV 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 31/01/2021   Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO         article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000       fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 17/06/2021       Moscow City Court 23/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 4:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 and between 8:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on 28/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of administrative proceedings (in connection with events of 31/01/2021 and 21/04/2021) 4,000   12425/22 09/02/2022 Yegor Vladimirovich SPIRIDONOV 1997 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 25/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 3:32 p.m. and 11:30   p.m. on 23/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings none, in the light of the award made in 49912/21   (see above)   20448/22 07/03/2022 Kirill Rishatovich CHURAKOV 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 29/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 7:15 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   24873/22 23/03/2022 Alina Anatolyevna PONOMAREVA 1975 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Voronezh Regional Court 30/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 2:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on 31/01/2021;     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   28253/22 26/05/2022 Yaroslav Gelyevich KAZEYEV 1982 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war rally   Moscow   13/03/2022 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 20 days Moscow City Court 21/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 3:30 p.m. on 13/03/2022 and 3:00 p.m. on 14/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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             none, in the light of award made in application no. 51264/21 (see above)   36221/22 11/07/2022 Damir Radikovich ISMAGILOV 1999 Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war rally   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 15 days Moscow City Court 11/03/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 none, in the light of award made in application no. 44511/21 (see above)     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.