CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 novembre 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 } .sD654500 { height:36.5pt } .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 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .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 } .sB21756B { height:54.55pt } .sE8B3F07F { height:99.45pt } .s2B9564AE { height:7.05pt } .sD9302F5C { height:106.95pt } .sB5A00430 { height:7.2pt } .s64DF07F { height:98.95pt } Published on 8 January 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   12249/21 Aleksandr Leonidovich LUTSKEVICH against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 30 November 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 offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     12249/21* 05/02/2021 Aleksandr Leonidovich LUTSKEVICH 1972 Daniil Alekseyevich Polyakov Voronezh Rally against constitutional amendments   Voronezh   27/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 05/08/2020 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – the applicant was summoned to appear at the police station on 03/07/2020 to compile an offence record in respect of his participation in a rally on 27/06/2020, he was detained at the police station until 2.30 p.m. after the record of offence had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based.     41146/21 28/07/2021 Aleksey Anatolyevich TUPITSIN 1969 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Ivanets Tbilisi, Georgia Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Ust-Kuta   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 9   days Irkutsk Regional Court 17/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings     50886/21* 01/10/2021 Dinar Ayratovich GIMAYEV 1982 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Penza   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community service Penza Regional Court 08/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based.     1964/22 03/12/2021 Alena Valeriyevna KASHBULLINA 1998 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   02/02/2021 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 03/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station at 12 a.m. on 03/02/2021 for compiling an offence report; detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based.     3304/22* 30/12/2021 Oleg Semenovich BESPALOV 1960 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Perm   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Perm Regional Court 20/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/04/2021 for compiling an offence report on account of the applicant’s participation in the rally of 21/04/2021,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his 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.     37658/22* 19/07/2022 Aleksandra Vadimovna ELLER 1990 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO detention for 5 days St Petersburg City Court 22/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for compiling an offence report; detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.     37671/22* 16/07/2022 Sergey Aleksandrovich FEDOROV 1997 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 22/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/02/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his 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.     39122/22* 29/07/2022 Irina Aleksandrovna SHCHELOKOVA   Daniil Alekseyevich Polyakov Voronezh Anti-war protest   Voronezh   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 24/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 24/02/2022 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based.     39709/22* 02/08/2022 Oksana Nikolayevna SHURUKHINA 1977 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 05/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/02/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based.   47824/22* 26/09/2022 Sergey MORYAKOV 1990 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova Moscow Anti-war protest   Yekaterinburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community work Sverdlovsk Regional Court 01/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based.   49772/22* 24/09/2022 Pavel Viktorovich ARKHIPOV 1997     Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 24/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report; detention beyond the three-hour statutory period,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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 the police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based