CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 décembre 2025

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s19646158 { width:117.75pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF POKATILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 22224/21 and 20 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 December 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pokatilov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 November 2025, 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, including with reference to COVID-related restrictions which were in force at the material time in the relevant Russian regions. Some applicants 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). It further refers to Nemytov   and Others v. Russia   (nos.   1257/21 and 2   others, 27 May 2025) in so far as the application by the authorities of the COVID-19-related restrictions to assemblies are concerned. 9.     In the leading cases of Nemytov   and Others, cited above, 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. 11.     In particular, the Court acknowledges that wide margin of appreciation is allowed to the authorities dealing with the COVID-19 health crisis (see   Nemytov   and Others , cited above, §§ 115-17, and   Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain , no.   49363/20, § 81, 17 October 2024). At the time of relevant events (see the appended table), the virus was still actively circulating and various COVID-19 related restrictions were still in place generally pursuing a pressing social need to protect individual and public health (see   Nemytov   and Others , cited above, §   139). 12.     However, the Court notes that at the time of the events in the present cases (see the appended table) the regime of strict lockdowns in the relevant regions was no longer in force, several COVID-19-related restrictions had been altered or eased, indoors and outdoors sports, cultural, entertainment and other events could be held, albeit with some restrictions. Under these circumstances, no sufficient justification has been advanced as to why regional bans on all forms of protest were maintained, while leisure activities were allowed under certain conditions. Furthermore, the judicial decisions imposing sanctions on the applicants in the present cases lacked a meaningful proportionality analysis. Therefore, the fines and administrative detention orders by the domestic courts had been disproportionate to the aim pursued, and the domestic authorities overstepped the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them (see, mutatis mutandis , Nemytov and Others , cited above, §§ 136-51). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 14.     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. 15.     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, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning processing of applicants’ personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in administrative-offence proceedings in order to identify, locate and arrest them; and Novikova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4   others, §§   106-225, 26   April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 16.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-15 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     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 raised by the applicants; 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 11 December 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   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]     22224/21 02/04/2021 Sergey Andreyevich POKATILOV 2021   Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Irkutsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days Irkutsk Regional Court 28/01/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     24703/21 16/04/2021 Nina Aleksandrovna BELYAYEVA 1989   Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich Voronezh Event in support of S. Furgal   Voronezh   25/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Voronezh Regional Court 21/10/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     33779/21 03/06/2021 Dmitriy Valeryevich IVANOV 1990   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally in support of Navalnyy   Cheboksary   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 11/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     35148/21 25/06/2021 Vladislav Sergeyevich MAKAROV 1997   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Tula   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Tula Regional Court 18/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     38189/21 16/07/2021 Oleg Valeryevich VLASOV 1987   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 30/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     41146/21 28/07/2021 Aleksey Anatolyevich TUPITSIN 1969   Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Ust-Kut   21/04/2021   article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention of 9 days Irkutsk Regional Court 17/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,000     45061/21 01/09/2021 Denis Viktorovich KUZNETSOV 1985   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Penza   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Penza Regional Court 18/03/2021   3,500     45857/21 27/08/2021 Ilya Vladimirovich LESHUKOV 2003   Kychin Aleksey Mikhaylovich Arkhangelsk Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Arkhangelsk   31/01/2021     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy ”   Arkhangelsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO             article 20.2 § 8 of CAO community works of 40 hours           fine of RUB   75,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 06/04/2021           Arkhangelsk Regional Court 10/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for and after drawing up a record of administrative offence, from 27/04/2021 to 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 – both sets of proceedings   4,000     49611/21 17/09/2021 Anatoliy Mariyevich SVECHNIKOV 1972   Ruchko Irina Yuryevna Yekaterinburg Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg   23/01/2021     Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Yekaterinburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO             article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work           20 hours of community work Sverdlovsk Regional Court 28/07/2021           Sverdlovsk Regional Court 14/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/04/2021 at a police station for compiling an offence report in relation to the rally 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 - final decisions on 28/07/2021 and 14/07/2021 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court (respectively, as to the rally on 23/01/2021 and the event on 06/03/2021 mentioned below),   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - (i) on 06/03/2021 the applicant participated in a series of solo demonstrations against political persecution; the courts classified it as a single group event and sentenced the applicant to 30 hours of community work (article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, final decision on 14/07/2021 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court); and (ii) on 27/02/2022 the applicant placed B. Nemtsov’s photograph and a candle at a public venue, to commemorate his murder; the courts classified it as participation in an assembly and sentenced him to administrative detention of thirty days, referring to the breach of the regional COVID regulations banning all public events such as rallies (article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, final decision on 04/03/2022 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court) 5,000   50886/21 01/10/2021 Dinar Ayratovich GIMAYEV 1982   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Penza   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community service Penza Regional Court 08/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   51784/21 30/09/2021 Leonid Dmitriyevich YEGOROV 1996       Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Samara   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   10,000 Samara Regional Court 01/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 31/01/2021 to 01/02/2021 for drawing up an administrative offence record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   52295/21 11/10/2021 Anastasiya Vladimirovna TSVETKOVA 1998   Martynova Tatyana Georgiyevna Pskov Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Pskov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Pskov Regional Court 12/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   55132/21 17/10/2021 Anastasiya Olegovna MARYINA 1994   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Tambov   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO,     and     article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO administrative detention for 3 days   and       fine of RUB 3,000 Tambov Regional Court 31/05/2021   and     Tambov Regional Court 01/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 18/05/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of the proceedings,   Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and her subsequent conviction (raised on appeal). 5,000   58745/21 11/11/2021 Viktoriya Igorevna MATSNEVA 1987   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy ”   Moscow   31/01/2021   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/05/2021   3,500   59686/21 13/11/2021 Nadezhda Sergeyevna BELOVA 1983   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   5697/22 06/01/2022 Yevgeniya Viktorovna SURAVSKAYA 1989   Vlasov Aleksey Valeryevich Tula Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Tula   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Tula Regional Court 27/05/2021   (The applicant received a copy of the final judgment on 06/07/2021) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   14014/22 26/02/2022 Yelizaveta Mikhaylovna NOVIKOVA 2000   Kuroptev Aleksey Mikhaylovich Balashikha Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Arkhangelsk   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Arkhangelsk Regional Court 31/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   14344/22 14/01/2022 Igor Vladimirovich KOROBKOV 1989   Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 15/07/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   21710/22 08/04/2022 Valeriy Valentinovich SHLYKOV 1963   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Ivanovo   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Ivanovo Town Court 18/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   24310/22 12/04/2022 Miroslav Arkadyevich YAKOVLEV 1961   Vlasov Aleksey Valeryevich Tula Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Tula   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Tula Regional Court 07/09/2021   (The applicant received a copy of the final judgment of 07/09/2021 on 12/10/2021) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record between 3 p.m. and 7 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   24618/22 06/08/2021 Dmitriy Yuryevich ANDREYEV 1986   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Penza   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Penza Regional Court 01/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3.20 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.