CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 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 } .sF057D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:6pt } .sF7147D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:5pt } Published on 30 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no.   52479/22 Nikita Andreyevich RADCHENKO against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 5 October 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 / criminal charges Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     52479/22* 03/11/2022 Nikita Andreyevich RADCHENKO 1994 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 24/02/2022 the applicant was escorted 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.     52480/22* 27/10/2022 Petr Andreyevich GOROVTSOV 2002     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 06/03/2022 the applicant was escorted 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;   Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     52966/22 29/10/2022 Maksim Yevgenyevich ZLOBOV 1991 Mariya Olegovna Eysmont Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 29/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 06/03/2022 the applicant was escorted 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;     Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     53608/22* 29/10/2022 Kristina Stanislavovna ZVEZHINSKAYA 1991     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   04/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 01/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 04/03/2022 the applicant was escorted 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.     55548/22 15/11/2022 Darya Yevgenyevna MUSIYENKO 2002 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   01/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 15/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 01/03/2022 the applicant was escorted 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;     Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     55704/22* 16/11/2022 Oksana Ivanovna TARASYUK 1971 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 06/03/2022 the applicant was escorted 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;     Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     55793/22 05/11/2022 Dmitriy LOGINOV 1980 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO   fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 05/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 06/03/2022 the applicant was escorted 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;   Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     55808/22* 12/11/2022 Inna Dmitriyevna LIVADNAYA 1959 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 13/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 06/03/2022 the applicant was escorted 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;     Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     55811/22* 23/11/2022 Maksim Anatolyevich ALESHIN 1985     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 29/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 24/02/2022 the applicant was escorted 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;     Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.   55813/22 05/10/2022 Irina Vladimirovna MIKHAYLOVA 1969     Manifestation against the war in Ukraine   Moscow   28/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 21/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 28/02/2022 the applicant was escorted 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;     Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.