CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s27045575 { width:117.88%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF29177A6 { height:1pt } .s3083F5A9 { width:3.84%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s995D5A22 { width:7.72%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sECE322C2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.65pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2F1B847D { width:6.72%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sABA08E98 { width:11.08%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s14098FB3 { width:11.02%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s66A21D50 { width:7.68%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s718934CC { width:9.62%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sA264E41F { width:6.74%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s5BA6D738 { width:10.56%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s334AC5D1 { width:11.54%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s5DB7C818 { width:13.46%; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s832947C5 { width:3.84%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s87680A70 { margin-left:11.67pt; text-align:center; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sB214B559 { width:7.72%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB1E5260B { width:6.72%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA72455EA { width:11.08%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B3E9628 { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF69EB213 { width:7.68%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sBE6B5073 { width:9.62%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE0290A8D { width:6.74%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s54DDB8A0 { width:10.56%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s53314B3 { width:11.54%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1592A8BF { width:13.46%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sF63429C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:13.15pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s12BF75C4 { width:3.84%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s59484EA6 { width:7.72%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2378F1D1 { width:6.72%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4A145EEA { width:11.08%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sACDDF828 { width:11.02%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s28EB51E4 { width:7.68%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32E59EB4 { width:9.62%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CFF3693 { width:6.74%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4B5EB191 { width:10.56%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9CACD54F { width:11.54%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6CD5002A { width:13.46%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 7 June 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 39696/12 Andrey Aleksandrovich SEMENOV against Russia and 16 other applications (see list appended)   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE   The applicants are Russian nationals. They were arrested during public assemblies and convicted of administrative offences for shouting slogans or waving banners that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public events in which they claimed to participate. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. COMPLAINTS Joint complaints The applicants in all cases complain that their escorting to the police stations, administrative arrests and the administrative offence proceedings against them violated their rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention.   Individual complaints 1.     Mr Mironov (application no.   79906/17) complains under Article   3 of the Convention about the allegedly inhuman conditions of detention at the police station. 2.     The applicants in applications nos. 79906/17, 2940/18, 5270/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 complain that their escorting to the police stations and/or administrative arrests were unlawful and unjustified in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 3.     The applicants in applications nos. 16683/17, 79906/17, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 4841/18, 5270/18, 5340/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court in the administrative-offence proceedings. 4.     The applicants in applications nos. 79906/17, 5270/18 and 6493/18 complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were unable to cross-examine witnesses against them, in particular the police officers who had arrested them and the police officers who had drawn up various procedural documents describing their offences. 5.     Mr Shendakov (application no. 6493/18) complains Article 6 §§ 1 and   3 (d) of the Convention about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine defence witnesses, in particular the eye-witnesses of his arrest. 6.     The applicants in applications nos. 39696/12, 77503/12, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 5340/18 and   11453/18 complain under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention about the local authorities’ decisions refusing to approve the locations and/or time of the public events planned by them. 7.     Mr Nagibin and Mr Ryazantsev (application no. 77503/12) complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention about the refusal to approve the locations and/or time of the public events planned by them. 8.     The applicants in applications nos. 39696/12 and 29316/13 complain under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 that the refusal to approve the location of their public event and/or their arrests and convictions for administrative offences amounted to discrimination on account of their political opinion. 9.     Mr Mironov (application no. 79906/17) complains under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that he was tried twice for the same offence because he was convicted under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences for substantially the same facts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTION Did the applicants’ arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against them for shouting slogans and/or waving banners that did not correspond to the declared aims of the authorised public events in which they claimed to participate violate their right to freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 10 and 11 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     Were the conditions of Mr Mironov’s detention in the police station from 9 to 10 May 2017 (application no.   79906/17) compatible with Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Were the applicants in applications nos. 79906/17, 2940/18, 5270/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were their escorting to the police station and/or their administrative arrests carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law? The Government are requested to submit relevant escorting and/or arrest records in respect of each applicant.   3.     Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court in the administrative-offence proceedings in applications nos. 16683/17, 79906/17, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 4841/18, 5270/18, 5340/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016)?   4.     Were the applicants in applications nos. 79906/17 (in both sets of proceedings), 5270/18 and 6493/18 able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?   5.     Was Mr Shendakov (application no. 6493/18) given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his version of events, in particular by calling defence witnesses, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?   6.     Did the local authorities’ decisions refusing to approve the locations and/or time chosen by the applicants in applications nos. 39696/12, 77503/12, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 5340/18 and 11453/18 for the public events planned by them contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article   10 of the Convention?   7.     Did the applicants in application no. 77503/12 have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention about the refusal to approve the locations and/or time of the public events planned by them, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular: –     Did they have at their disposal an effective remedy which would allow an enforceable judicial decision to be obtained on the authorities’ refusal to approve the location and/or time of a public event before its planned date? ­ –     Did they have an effective post-hoc remedy? In particular, did the scope of judicial review under Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure include an assessment of “necessity in a democratic society” and “proportionality” of the local authorities’ proposal to change the location and/or time of a public event? If no effective remedy was available to the applicants in application no.   77503/12, have they complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention (see Artyomov v. Russia , no. 14146/02, §§ 108-18, 27 May 2010)?   8.     Were the applicants in applications nos. 39696/12 and 29316/13 subjected to discrimination on account of their political opinion, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11?   9.     Was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention in application no. 79906/17? In particular: -     Had the offences under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences for which the applicant was prosecuted arisen from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same? -     Was there a duplication of proceedings? In particular, when there was a “final” decision in each set of proceedings? -     Alternatively (see A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, § 126, ECHR 2016), did the proceedings have a sufficiently close connection - both in substance and in time - with each other and constitute complementary legal responses to socially offensive conduct (ibid., §§   121 ‑ 25 and 130-32)? If yes, did such accumulated legal responses represent an excessive burden for the applicant and entail, in substance or in effect, double jeopardy to his detriment (ibid.)? Were the possible consequences of organising the legal treatment of the conduct concerned in such a manner proportionate and foreseeable for the applicant? APPENDIX No.   Application no.   Lodged on   Applicant name date of birth place of residence     Represented by   Aim of the public event Location Date   Measures applied within the notification procedure   Administrative charges   Measures applied within the administrative ‑ offence procedure   Final domestic decisions     The applicants’ actions as established by the domestic courts   39696/12* 14/05/2012 Andrey Aleksandrovich SEMENOV 02/03/1979 The Moscow Region   Mr D. LESNYAK Strategy-31 public event, Triumfalnaya Square, Moscow 31/08/2011     Public event in support of the freedom of assembly, Pyatnitskaya Street, Moscow, 20/07/2012               Refusal to approve the location of the public event           Approved 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“The CAO”)   20.2 § 5 of the CAO           19.3 of the CAO       administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)           Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (10,000 Russia roubles (RUB))   Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to four days’ administrative detention Administrative-offence procedure: 30/11/2011 The Tverskoy District Court of Moscow       03/10/2012 the Zamoskvoretskiy Ditrict Court of Moscow       07/09/2012 the Zamoskvoretskiy Ditrict Court of Moscow The applicant participated in an unauthorised public event           The applicant held a political banner “Russia without Putin” which did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event;   The applicant resisted lawful arrest for holding the above-mentioned banner   77503/12* 18/10/2012 Pavel Nikolayevich NAGIBIN 06/06/1971 Rostov-on-Don Vladislav Yuryevich RYAZANTSEV 20/10/1990 Rostov-on-Don       A public event in support of fair elections, the centre of Rostov-on-Don, 04/02/2012               A march for fair elections, the centre of Rostov-on-Don, 24, 25 or 26/02/2012   A march for fair elections, the centre of Rostov-on-Don, 26/02/2012   Refusal to approve the location and time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (the LDPR) at the same location and time   Refusal to approve the location of the public event         Refusal to approve the location and time of the public event 20.2 § 1 of the CAO the first applicant’s escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)                                               Notification proceedings: 19/04/2012, The Rostov Regional Court; Administrative offence proceedings: 25/07/2012, the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don         28/05/2012 The Rostov Regional Court           24/05/2012 The Rostov Regional Court The first applicant organised an unauthorised public event. The domestic courts rejected his argument that he had participated the LDPR’s public event, finding that, by making a speech in support of fair elections and by distributing leaflets, he had organised a separate event         29316/13* 02/04/2013 Galina Fedorovna TIKHENKO 03/03/1947 The Volgograd Region     The Independence Day commemoration, Mamayev Kurgan, Volgograd, 12/06/2012   Approved 20.2 § 5 of the CAO     Escorting to a police station and conviction to an oral reprimand 05/10/2012 The Volzhskiy Town Court of the Volgograd Region The applicant distributed and waved banners that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event   16683/17* 25/02/2017 Dmitriy Sergeyevich YARTSEV 21/02/1988 Moscow   Ms T. GLUSHKOVA A march for labour rights, the centre of Moscow, 01/05/2016 Approved 20.2 § 5 of the CAO   Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)   26/08/2016 The Moscow City Court The applicant chanted slogans (“Stop cops’ abuse”, “Down with the police state”) that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event     79906/17* 07/11/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich MIRONOV 24/05/1979 Moscow   Mr O. BEZNISKO “Immortal regiment” march, The centre of Moscow, 09/05/2017 Approved 20.2 § 5 of the CAO               19.3 of the CAO     Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 20,000)           Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to seven days’ administrative detention 08/10/2017 The Moscow City Court             16/05/2017 The Moscow City Court       The applicant distributed leaflets portraying the President and the Prime Minister with a caption “It is not their victory” that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event   The applicant did not obey the police’s order to stop distributing leaflets   80338/17 10/11/2017 Vyacheslav Borisovich RYBAKOV 25/01/1966 Chebokasary   Mr A. GLUKHOV Anti-corruption protest, Chapayev Park, Cheboksary, 26/03/2017 Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time   20.2 § 5 of the CAO                     19.3 of the CAO   Conviction to thirty days’ community work                   Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)   15/08/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic                 11/05/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event;           The applicant did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities     80340/17 10/11/2017 Yuriy Borisovich SIDOROV 25/07/1987 The Tula Region   Mr A. GLUKHOV Anti-corruption protest, Chapayev Park, Cheboksary, 26/03/2017 Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time   20.2 § 5 of the CAO             19.3 of the CAO   Conviction to thirty-two days’ community work           Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)   31/08/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic         30/05/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic   The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event;   The applicant did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities     80358/17 10/11/2017 Dmitriy Martin ROBSON 04/11/1997 Cheboksary   Mr A.GLUKHOV Anti-corruption protest, Chapayev Park, Cheboksary, 26/03/2017 Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time   19.3 of the CAO   Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)   11/05/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event; he did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities     80374/17 10/11/2017 Roman Mikhaylovich ROMANOV 25/06/1998 Cheboksary   Mr A. GLUKHOV Anti-corruption protest, Chapayev Park, Cheboksary, 26/03/2017 Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time   19.3 of the CAO   Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)   12/05/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event; he did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities     80378/17 10/11/2017 Konstantin Aleksandrovich ISHUTOV 15/06/1983 Cheboksary   Mr A. GLUKHOV Anti-corruption protest, Chapayev Park, Cheboksary, 26/03/2017 Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time   20.2 § 5 of the CAO             19.3 of the CAO   Conviction to a fine (RUB 20,000)             Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)   21/09/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic         30/05/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event;   The applicant did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities   80382/17 10/11/2017 Semen Aleksandrovich KOCHKIN 21/09/1993 Cheboksary   Mr A. GLUKHOV Anti-corruption protest, Chapayev Park, Cheboksary, 26/03/2017 Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time                 20.2 § 1 of the CAO                       19.3 of the CAO                 Conviction to thirty days’ community work                     Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)   Notification proceedings: 19/06/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic   31/08/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic                   11/05/2017 The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic               The applicant organised an unauthorised public event simultaneously with the approved Young Guard’s public event; he organised a group of people who waved anti-government banners and shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the Young Guard’s event   The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event; he did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities     2940/18 25/12/2017 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich YELFIMOV 10/10/1995 Vladivostok   Mr K. TEREKHOV Anti-corruption protest, Privokzalnaya Square, Vladivostok, 26/03/2017 Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event to promote the National Guard Day was scheduled at the same location and time   20.2 § 5 of the CAO   Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)   28/06/2017 The Primorskiy Regional Court The applicant waved an anti-government banner and chanted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the aims of the approved National Guard Day event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event     4841/18* 17/01/2018 Andrey Alekseyevich YAROTSKOY 20/08/1991 Vladivostok   Mr K. TEREKHOV “Day of the City” march Svetlanskaya Street, Vladivotok 01/07/2017 Approved 20.2 § 8 of the CAO   Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)   10/08/2017 The Primorskiy Regional Court   The applicant held a banner depicting Mr Navalnyy and Mr Putin with a caption “Hold on Aleksey. Men is stronger than rats” that did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved public event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event     5270/18 17/01/2018 Dmitriy Yevgenyevich RODIN 19/06/1979 The Moscow Region   Mr K. TEREKHOV, Mr D. SHEDOV A meeting for maintaining the trolleybus network, Suvorovskaya Square, Moscow, 29/01/2017   Approved 20.2 § 5 of the CAO   Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)   24/07/2017 The Moscow City Court The applicant waved a banner “Bring the mayor’s office to liability” that did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved event   5340/18* 08/01/2018 Vladimir Romanovich YAROSLAVSKIY 20/10/1993 Vladivostok   Mr K. TEREKHOV Anti-corruption protest, Privokzalnaya Square, Vladivostok, 26/03/2017 Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event to promote the National Guard Day was scheduled at the same location and time     20.2 § 5 of the CAO   Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)   12/07/2017 The Primorskiy Regional Court The applicant waved an anti-government banner and chanted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the aims of the approved National Guard Day event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event     6493/18 28/01/2017 Mikhail Anatolyevich SHENDAKOV 31/01/1965 The Moscow Region     Mr D. SHEDOV A meeting for maintaining the trolleybus network, Suvorovskaya Square, Moscow, 29/01/2017 Approved 20.2 § 5 of the CAO   Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)   28/07/2017 The Moscow City Court The applicant waved a banner “Putin is the traitor of the Motherland and the enemy of the Russian people” that did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved event     11453/18* 15/02/2018 Roman Yuryevich GURYANOV 28/01/1999 the Primorskiy Region   Ms P.   SIDELNIKOVA Anti-corruption protest, Privokzalnaya Square, Vladivostok, 26/03/2017 Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event to promote the National Guard Day was scheduled at the same location and time   20.2 § 5 of the CAO   Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 5,000)   09/08/2017 The Primorskiy Regional Court, received on 19/08/2017 The applicant waved an anti-government banner that did not correspond to the aims of the approved National Guard Day event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event