CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .s3667E82D { height:4.25pt } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } Published on 30 May 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no.   2829/18 Andrey Vladimirovich BOYARSHINOV against Russia and 14 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 4 May 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 11 of the Convention relating to disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see 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).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS 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 charges Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     2829/18* 26/12/2017 Andrey Vladimirovich BOYARSHINOV 1984     Anti-corruption manifestation Kazan 14/05/2017           Anti-corruption manifestation in support to Mr Navalnyy Kazan 08/07/2017   Anti-corruption manifestation Kazan 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO community service of 35 hours             administrative detention of 15 days       administrative detention of 20 days Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 21/06/2017 (adopted in the applicant’s absence and received on 26/06/2017)   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 03/08/2017     Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 25/05/2018 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 18/05/2018 to 10.40 a.m. on 19/05/2018 (the hearings on the applicant’s administrative-offence case), - from 9.25 p.m. on 08/09/2018 to 09/09/2018 (the hearings on the applicant’s administrative-offence case) (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, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings noted in column no. 8 (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016);   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - On 01/08/2020 the applicant participated in a solo demonstration to support S.Furgal. He was arrested, convicted under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO and sentenced to 7 days of administrative detention. The final decision of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic - 20/08/2020 (see Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-215, 26 April 2016);     Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - Two counts: 1) On 08/09/2018 the applicant was arrested in his flat for publishing a post in Vkontakte calling to participate in a rally against the pension reform. He was convicted under art. 20.2 § 8 of CAO and sentenced to 15 days of administrative detention. The final decision of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic - 18/09/2018. 2) On 20/04/2021 the applicant was arrested in his flat for publishing a post in Vkontakte calling to participate in a rally to support A. Navalnyy. He was convicted under art; 20.2 § 8 of CAO and sentenced to 20 days of administrative detention. The final decision of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic - 05/05/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos.   60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 74-90, 30 April 2019).   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal. Three counts: the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance following the events of 05/05/2018, 08/09/2018 and 19/08/2020 were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others , cited above, §§   179-191; Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019);   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - The applicant was convicted twice for his participation in the same non-notified public event on 14/05/2017: under art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention of 12 days, last final decision of 06/06/2017) and under Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (community service of 35 hours, last final decision received on 26/06/2017) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)     2933/18* 25/12/2017 Sergey Aleksandrovich STREMIDLO 1979 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation St Petersburg 12/06/2017   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 13/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , Cited above, §§ 69-84);       Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of the impossibility to question in open court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Frumkin v.   Russia , no.   74568/12, § 153-68, 5 January 2016)     3569/18* 20/12/2017 Diana Anatolyevna KARIMOVA 1996 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow Anti-corruption manifestation St Petersburg 12/06/2017 Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO and   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 5 days and fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court, 20/06/2017 and 18/07/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of both sets of the administrative offence proceedings (see Karelin , Cited above, §§   69-84);   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 13/06/2017 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 179-191; Martynyuk , §§   38-42, both cited above)     18385/18* 01/12/2017 Yelena Yuryevna BLINOVA 1978 Pavel Valeryevich Romanov Cheboksary Opposition manifestation Cheboksary 16/04/2017         Opposition rally Cheboksary 29/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO             Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 (charges requalified on appeal to Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO)   fine of RUB 200,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 01/06/2017         Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 12/12/2017       29300/18* 11/06/2018 Irina Ivanovna LYASHCHENKO 1960 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow Manifestation in support of Mr Navalnyy Berezniki, Perm Region 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO community service of 24 hours Perm Regional Court 28/12/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 69-84)       29304/18* 11/06/2018 Roman Aleksandrovich KOROTAYEV 1978 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow Manifestation in support of Mr Navalniy Berezniki, Perm Region 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community works Perm Regional Court 26/12/2017       29495/18* 09/06/2018 Irina Stepanovna NORMAN 1993 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Manifestation in support of Mr Navalnyy Yekaterinburg 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 12/12/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 69-84);   Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search in the applicant’s apartment on 21/04/2021 (authorised post factum on 22/04/2021 by the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, appeal dismissed on 26/08/2021 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court). No sufficient reasons for the search (the ground invoked was that the applicant could be Mr Navalnyy’s supporter), broad wording of the search warrant, stereotyped reasoning (see Kruglov and Others v. Russia , nos.   11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020)     39063/18* 07/08/2018 Olga Andreyevna IVANOVA 1965 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Manifestation in support of Mr Navalnyy’s candidacy for the 2018 presidential election Volgograd 28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 07/02/2018 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 3.10 p.m. on 28/01/2018 to the beginning of the hearings on the applicant’s administrative-offence case (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above)   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 69-84)     41987/18* 30/07/2018 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich BOLDYREV 1968 Ilya Vladimirovich Sivoldayev Moscow Manifestation against constitutional amendments Voronezh 01/08/2020   Manifestation in support of Belarus Voronezh 24/10/2020   Opposition manifestation related to journalists’ killings Voronezh 07/10/2017 Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO         Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine RUB 20,000         fine of RUB 20,000       fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 19/11/2020       Voronezh Regional Court 28/05/2021     Voronezh Regional Court 30/01/2018 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 28/01/2021 to 29/01/2021 (when the applicant’s trial on the administrative offence related to his calls to participate in an unauthorised public event started) (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in 4 sets of the administrative-offence proceedings: final decisions of the Voronezh Regional Court of 30/01/2018, 19/11/2020, 04/02/2021 and 28/05/2021 (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 69-84);   Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of the impossibility to question in open court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Frumkin , cited above,   § 153-68);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 7 days, Voronezh Regional Court 04/02/2021 (see Elvira Dmitriyeva , cited above, §§ 74-90);     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO (see above) was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 179-191; Martynyuk , §§ 38-42, both cited above)   45043/18* 12/09/2018 Andrey Grigoryevich IRINARKHOV 1986 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Manifestation in support to Mr Navalnyy as candidate for the 2018 presidential election Ufa 28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic 14/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 69-84);     Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of the impossibility to question in open court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Frumkin , cited above,   § 153-68)   45228/18* 18/09/2018 Irina Alekseyevna ZENINA 1952 Irina Vladimirovna Gak Rostov-on-Don Manifestation in support of Mr Navalnyy Rostov-on-Don 24/12/2017   Manifestation in support of Mr Navalnyy Rostov-on-Don 31/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO       Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000       fine of RUB 10,000 Rostov Regional Court 20/03/2018     Rostov Regional Court 17/03/2021 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”, from 12.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. (when the applicant’s trial on the administrative offence started) on 31/01/2021 (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above,   §§ 69-84);     Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine as witnesses the police officers who arrested the applicant as regards the events of 31/01/2021 (see Frumkin , cited above, § 153-68).   46156/18* 21/09/2018 Roman Sergeyevich SHCHERBAKOV 1988 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Manifestation in support of Mr Navalnyy as candidate for the 2018 presidential election Tula 28/01/2018   Manifestation in support of Mr Navalnyy Tula 23/01/2021 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO           Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000           fine of RUB 10,000 Tula Regional Court 22/03/2018         Tula Regional Court 22/06/2021 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”: - from 02.05 p.m. to 07.00 p.m. on 28/01/2018 (the time indicated by the police officers was at variance with the real applicant’s time of deprivation of liberty), - from 02.40 p.m. to 07.00 p.m. on 23/01/2021(see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above); Art. 6 (1) - in respect of both sets of the administrative offence proceedings: lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 69-84);   Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - in respect of both sets of the administrative offence cases: unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine as witnesses the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s convictions were based (see Frumkin , cited above, § 153-68)   50044/18* 10/10/2018 Yekaterina Andreyevna YANSHINA 1996 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Manifestation against Mr Putin’s re-election as President Voronezh 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000     administrative detention of 2 days Voronezh Regional Court, 04/06/2018 and 04/07/2018 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 6.30 p.m. on 05/05/2018 to 06/05/2018 (when the applicant’s trial under art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO started) (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above);   Art. 6 (1) - in respect of both sets of proceedings: lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 69-84);   Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of the impossibility to question in open court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and on whose statements the applicant’s convictions were based (see Frumkin , cited above, § 153-68);     Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - The applicant was convicted twice for her participating in the same public event: under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO (appeal on 04/07/2018, 2 days of detention), and under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO (appeal on 04/06/2018, fine of RUB 5,000) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)   50047/18* 10/10/2018 Pavel Anatolyevich POTASHOV 1998 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Manifestation against Mr Putin’s re-election as President Voronezh 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 14/06/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above, §§ 69-84);   Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) – unfair trial in view of the impossibility to question in open court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based (see Frumkin , cited above, § 153-68)   54306/18* 09/11/2018 Ivan Aleksandrovich SILAYEV 1978 Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov Kazan Manifestation against Mr Putin’s re-election as President St Petersburg 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 and administrative detention of   6 days St Petersburg City Court 24/05/2018   and 10/05/2018 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 4.00 p.m. on 05/05/18 to 09.00 a.m. on 06/05/2018 (when the applicant’s trial on the administrative offence started) (see Butkevich , §§ 63-65, Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 121-23, and Korneyeva , §§ 34-36, all cited above);   Art. 6 (1) - in respect of both sets of the administrative offence proceedings: lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin , cited above,   §§ 69-84)     Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - in respect of both sets of the administrative offence proceedings: unfair trial in view of the impossibility to question in open court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and on whose statements the applicant’s convictions were based (see Frumkin , cited above, § 153-68);   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others , §§ 179-191; Martynyuk , §§ 38-42, both cited above);   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - The applicant was convicted twice for participation in the same public event: under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO (appeal on 10/05/2018, 6 days of detention) and under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO (appeal on 24/05/2018, fine of RUB 15,000) (see Korneyeva , cited above, §§ 47-65)