CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 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 } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .sAE3756B { height:54.75pt } .sF7147D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:5pt } Published on 26 June 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no.   4815/18 Dmitriy Vladimirovich KARGASHIN against Russia and 23 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 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 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and   Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no.   6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law     4815/18 19/01/2018 Dmitriy Vladimirovich KARGASHIN 1989   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 26/03/2017, 4.50 p.m. 27/03/2017, 1.30 a.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art.   27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8   other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art.   27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§   121 ‑ 22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 20/07/2017, fine of RUB 10,000;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to examine police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based     6553/18* 24/01/2018 Igor Nikolayevich TYMCHUK 1964   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 26/03/2017 27/03/2017 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 24/07/2017, fine of RUB 15,000;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - failure to obtain attendance of the witnesses (police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based)     9367/18* 16/02/2018 Pavel Vladimirovich BOSENKO 1996   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 26/03/2017, 4.07 p.m. 27/03/2017, 1 a.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/09/2017, fine of RUB 20,000     12053/18 03/03/2018 Aleksey Andreyevich KHARITONOV 1990   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 26/03/2017 26/03/2017 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/09/2017, fine of RUB 20,000;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - failure to obtain attendance of the witnesses (police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based)     42476/18* 20/08/2018 Gabriyel Eduardovich ARUTYUNOV 1978 Tatyana Aleksandrovna Tretyak Gelendzhik 20/07/2018, Supreme Court of the Adygeya Republic quashed the applicant’s conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the trial court 14/08/2018 Authorities’ failure to specify the period of pre-trial detention (see Logvinenko v.   Russia, no.   44511/04,   §§ 35-39, 17 June 2010)       2555/19* 29/12/2018 Sergey Gennadyevich VORONOV 1969 Ani Mesropovna Agagyulyan Moscow 17/08/2018, 12.45 a.m. 17/08/2018, 10.33 a.m. Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence / assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10   April 2018)       10336/20* 04/02/2020 Anna Viktorovna KITAYEVA 1985 Yekaterina Borisovna Belova Moscow 13/11/2018 13/11/2018 Forced attendance without evidence of proper summons to appear or of failure by the   applicant to comply without a valid excuse (see Rozhkov v. Russia (no.   2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31   January 2017) Art. 3 - torture or inhuman or degrading treatment - Ineffective investigation of the alleged rape and assault which took place on 28/04/2016. On 15/06/2016 the applicant reported the crimes. The criminal investigation was opened on 28/08/2018. It was subsequently discontinued for lack of corpus delicti (rape) and as time-barred (assault). The latest decision on the matter was taken by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir on 09/12/2021 refusal to restore the time-limit for appeal)     13493/21* 15/02/2021 Ilnur Mingaliyevich KABIROV 1987 Rushan Rafisovich Kabirov Kazan 05/10/2020 05/10/2020 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)       31403/21* 21/05/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich YAKOVLEV 1976 Kseniya Andreyevna Soroka Moscow 13/12/2020   25/12/2020 Lack of legal basis for detention owing to the higher court’s omission to extend the applicant’s detention following the quashing of the first-instance court detention order or a conviction/appeal decision on conviction (see Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3   March 2011). Breach of Code of Criminal Procedure in applying detention     35893/21* 01/07/2021 Vladlen Kornelevich LOS 1990 Vyacheslav Ilyich Gimadi Vilnius 21/01/2021 22/01/2021 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 12/02/2021, 3 days’ administrative detention   40516/21 25/07/2021 Mansur Idrisovich GILMANOV 1990 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg 21/01/2021, 6.55 p.m. 22/01/2021 Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 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 - Moscow City Court, 26/01/2021, 5 days’ administrative detention;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his sentence of administrative arrest before the appeal judgment was delivered (see Tsvetkova and Others, §§ 179-91; Martynyuk v.   Russia, §§   38 ‑ 42)       40670/21 25/07/2021 Aliya Ramilevna ILYASOVA 1991 Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg 23/01/2021 24/01/2021 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 04/02/2021, fine of RUB   10,000   47438/21* 11/09/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich SOLOVYEV 1982 Rushan Rafisovich Kabirov Kazan 08/05/2021, 3 p.m. 09/05/2021, 3 a.m. Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017). Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019)     49278/21* 18/09/2021 Dmitriy Nikolayevich PANIN 1994 Yeva Viktorovna Levenberg Moscow 31/01/2021 01/02/2021 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 18/03/2021, 10   days’ administrative detention   53222/21* 05/10/2021 Polina Igorevna RADETSKAYA 2002 Leonid Alkhasovich Abgadzhava Moscow 31/01/2021 31/01/2021 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 06/04/2021 Moscow City Court, 3 days’ administrative detention   54888/21* 14/10/2021 Vladimir Ivanovich TOLCHENNIKOV 1987   Sergey Dmitriyevich BELIKOV 1987 Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou 23/01/2021 23/01/2021 Applicants taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019)     60627/21* 04/12/2021 Yuriy Vladimirovich PEREPECHAY 1988 Andrey Albertovich Bityutskiy Khabarovsk 05/09/2019 06/09/2019 (The final decision on the matter was taken by the Khabarovsk Regional Court on 06/07/2021) Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13   February 2018)     951/22* 15/12/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich GORDIYENKO 1978 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov Taganrog 13/08/2020, 12.44 p.m. 15/08/2020, 3.30 p.m. 13/08/2020, 9.30 p.m. 15/08/2020, 5.50 p.m. Forced attendance without evidence of proper summons to appear or of failure by the   applicant to comply without a valid excuse (see Rozhkov v. Russia (no.   2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31   January 2017), Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v.   Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12   others, §§   76-79, 26 June 2018) Art. 8 (1) - secret surveillance - Interception of telephone communications authorised, apparently on multiple occasions, by the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don from 06/07/2021 to 19/08/2021. The applicant was refused access to the decisions authorising the interception. As it transpires from decisions regarding other suspects in the criminal proceedings, the courts possibly did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of secret surveillance   35612/22 29/06/2022 Vladislav Aleksandrovich NEZNAMOV 1997 Aleksey Alekseyevich Levchenko Rostov-on-Don 06/03/2022, 3.20 p.m. 07/03/2022, 10.00 a.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no.   47598/08, § 21, 28   November 2017), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art.   27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art.   27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - 06/04/2022, at   5.20 p.m.; Pushkinskaya street, Rostov-on-Don; solo picket against the war in Ukraine (holding a banner with the text "No war! Do not trust propaganda". Administrative charges and penalty: Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO (refusal to present an ID upon the police’s request), 10 days’ administrative detention. Final domestic court decision: Rostov Regional Court, 30/05/2022;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 30/05/2022, 10 days’ administrative detention,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to confront police officers who arrested him. He sought to challenge the official record stating that he had refused to produce an ID,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his sentence – administrative arrest – before the appeal judgment was delivered (see Tsvetkova and Others, §§ 179-91; Martynyuk v.   Russia, §§ 38-42)   36737/22* 30/06/2022 Nadezhda Viktorovna BOGDANOVA 1993 Aleksey Alekseyevich Levchenko Rostov-on-Don 06/03/2022 07/03/2022 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 11/03/2022, 15   days’ administrative detention;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the fact that the applicant refused to comply with an order of a police officer was established on the basis of the reports prepared by the arresting police officers. The applicant was unable to confront them in the court;   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving administrative detention before the court’s decision was considered on appeal and entered into force on 11/03/2022   38105/22* 14/07/2022 Semen Viktorovich ALEKSIN 1995 Aleksandra Nikolayevna Bayeva Moscow 06/03/2022 06/03/2022 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Tyumen Regional Court on 20/04/2022, fine of RUB   30,000   39022/22* 29/07/2022 Valeriya Vladimirovna BUKREYEVA 2001 Irina Vladimirovna Gak Rostov-on-Don 28/02/2022 01/03/2022 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court on 29/03/2022, 7 days’ administrative arrest;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to question witnesses P. and K. on   whose statements her conviction was based; Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court (Martynyuk, §§   37-43; Tsvetkova and others, §§ 179-91)   925/23 28/11/2022 Irina Sergeyevna STATIVKA 2001 Yuliya Valeryevna Malinina Moscow 22/04/2022 22/04/2022 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v.   Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – St Peterburg City Court, 28/07/2022; fine of RUB   30,000;   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 22/04/2022 the applicant was found guilty of having made an anti-war graffiti on the facade of the building in St   Petersburg with an anti-war statement (Z-za...). She was arrested on 22/04/2022 and an administrative offence record under Art. 20.3.3 of the CAO (Discredit war) was drawn up. On 01/06/2022, the Smolninskiy District Court of St   Petersburg convicted the applicant thereof and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 30,000. Upheld by the St   Petersburg City Court on 28/07/2022.   5377/23* 26/01/2023 Emiliya Minibayevna PSHENICHNOVA 1986 Irina Vadimovna Sergeyeva Moscow 12/05/2022, 6.45 p.m.   13/05/2022 Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no. 5865/07, §§   63-64, 13   February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 27/09/2022, Moscow City Court, administrative detention of 10   days;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in unauthorised manifestation published in social network Twitter / 10 days of administrative detention/ Moscow City Court, 27/09/2022 (final);   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 13/05/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia, §§ 179-91; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§   38 ‑ 42)