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 } .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 } Published on 8 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   30342/19 Kirill Sergeyevich LEVCHENKO 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 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     30342/19* 17/05/2019 Kirill Sergeyevich LEVCHENKO 1982       23/01/2021 25/01/2021 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 - in respect of the second set of the proceedings in 2011,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – (1) public calls on 02/09/2018 to take part in a manifestation against the pension reform in Novosibirsk, Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 20/11/2018, and (2) calls to take part in the rally "Free Navalnyy" on 23/01/2021 in Novosibirsk, published in VKontakte social network, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, 9 days’ administrative arrest, Novosibirsk Regional Court 11/03/2021     40852/21* 25/07/2021 Kseniya Aleksandrovna SEREDKINA 1986   Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 22/01/2021 25/01/2021 22/01/2021 25/01/2021 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 - both sets of 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 the conviction was based (the proceedings which started on 25/01/2021),   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for publishing on 20/01/2021 a video in VKontakte social network on a rally "Free Navalnyy" to be held on 23/01/2021, detention of 3 days, final decision taken by the Rostov Regional Court 28/01/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative arrest imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (both sets of proceedings),   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - On 22/01/2021 and 25/01/2021 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don sentenced the applicant to 3 days’ and 8 days’ administrative arrest (upheld on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court on 28/01/2021) while women having minor children under 14 years of age are exempt from such penalty. The courts reasoned (in contravention of the domestic practice) that the applicant’s daughter resided with her father and not the applicant,   Art. 7 (1) - unforeseeable and expansive interpretation and application of criminal law - The applicant complains that she served a heavier sentence (administrative arrest instead of a fine) than prescribed by law     42170/21* 05/08/2021 Daniil Olegovich KEN 1988   Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg 02/02/2021 at 09.55 a.m.   20/04/2021 at 10.40 p.m.   27/02/2022 02/02/2021 at 03.47 p.m.   21/04/2021     28/02/2022 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), 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 - in respect of the three sets of the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to confront the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based in the third set of the proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – (1) Conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 CAO for calls to participate in unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 published in social network / detention of 7 days, St   Petersburg City Court, 08/02/2021 (final); (2) Conviction under Article 20.2 §   2 CAO for calls to participate in unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 published in social network, detention of 8 days, St   Petersburg City Court, 23/04/2021 (final),   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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (1st and 2nd sets of the proceedings),   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - Anti-war rally, 27/02/2022, St Petersburg, conviction under Art. 20.2.2 § 1 CAO, detention of 15 days, St   Petersburg City Court 10/03/2022 (final).     43400/21* 02/08/2021 Valentin Igorevich BELYAYEV 1997   Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul 20/04/2021 at 05.20 p.m.   06/03/2022 at 03.55 p.m. 21/04/2021 at 03.20 p.m.   07/03/2022 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) 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 the two sets of the administrative proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - Freedom of expression - conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for publishing in Twitter a call to participate in a rally "Free Navalnyy" on 21/04/2021, penalty of detention for 5 days, final decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mariy El, 03/06/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO for an Anti-war picket on 06/03/2022, penalty of detention for 10 days, final decision by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, 08/03/2022,   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 (both sets of proceedings)     43736/21* 23/08/2021 Aleksey Sergeyevich GARSHIN 1990   Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 05/02/2021 05/02/2021 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - The applicant was prosecuted for having posted in VKontakte social network information concerning a rally in support of A. Navalnyy, the final decision on the matter was taken by the Voronezh Regional Court on 03/03/2021; Article 20.2 §   2, 5 days’ administrative arrest     43810/21* 13/08/2021 Ivan Alekseyevich VOSTRIKOV 1984   Pavel Vladimirovich Rusnakov Tyumen 22/01/2021 23/01/2021 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,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - the applicant was prosecuted for having published in VKontakte social network information about the rally "Free Navalnyy" to be held on 23/01/2021 in Tyumen, Article 20.2-2 of the CAO, detention for 5 days, final decision Tyumen Regional Court 17/02/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 23/01/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     46051/21* 10/09/2021 Natalya Ivanovna KIRILYUK 1961   Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 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), 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 - in respect of the proceedings before the Rostov Regional Court which ended on 23/03/2021 (conviction under 20.2 § 6, fine of RUB 10,000) and on 06/07/2022 (conviction under 20.3.3 § 1, fine of RUB 30,000),   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - (raised under Articles 7, 10 and 11): the applicant was prosecuted for having published a text on her personal page in Odnoklassniki social network which "discredited" Russian armed forces and their actions in Ukraine (conviction under Art. 20.3.3 CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000, final - 06/07/2022, Rostov Regional Court)     53294/21* 07/10/2021 Petr Viktorovich BORKOV 1986   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou 31/01/2021 31/01/2021 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)       57703/21* 26/10/2021 Vladimir Viktorovich MURZIN 1969     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 27/04/2021, 2.20 p.m. 28/04/2021 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: 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: 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) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - 12/05/2021, Tambov Regional Court, refusal to summon and to question police officers whose reports served as a basis for the conviction,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - posting in the social network "VKontakte" a call on participation in a rally in support of A.   Navalnyy scheduled (1) for 31/01/2021, Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, detention for 10 days, Tambov Regional Court, 01/05/2021 and (2) for 21/04/2021, Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, detention for 25 days, Tambov Regional Court, 12/05/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - in respect of both sets of the proceedings - right of appeal against criminal conviction/sentence - the administrative detention was enforced immediately after the judgment of the trial court on account of the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   35387/22* 01/07/2022 Nikolay Vladimirovich MUNSKIY 1991   Vladimir Valeryevich Vasin Krasnoyarsk 09/12/2021 at 11.50 a.m. 09/12/2021 at 3.20 p.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) Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - interference of the applicant’s freedom of expression on account of his conviction (1) under Art. 20.29 of the CAO for publishing on his page "VKontakte" of a video criticising the United Russia political party (video deemed to be extremist by the Russian authorities), fine of RUB 2,000, final decision Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 18/05/2022 and (2) under Article 20.3 §   1 of the CAO for publishing on his page "VKontakte" a symbol of Navalnyy headquarters deemed to be extremist by the Russian authorities, detention of 10 days, final decision Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 18/05/2022 (Taganrog LRO and others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, § 206, 7 June 2022).,   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 the proceedings which ended with the judgment of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 02/03/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - 09/12/2021, Krasnoyarsk, a solo picket against the COVID measures, the applicant was issued with an administrative warning, the final decision on the matter was taken by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 02/03/2022   37080/22* 18/07/2022 Mikhail Mikhaylovich PISTSOV 1995   Andrey Vasilyevich Sabinin Stavropol 27/02/2022   21/04/2022 28/02/2022   21/04/2022 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) 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 proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression –   (1) conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for a post in VKontakte social network on a forthcoming Anti-war rally, 5 days’ administrative arrest, final decision was taken by the Stavropol Regional Court on 18/03/2022;   (2) conviction under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 CAO for the statements made on 18/04/2022 at the military commissariat, fine of RUB 35,000, final decision was taken by the Stavropol Regional Court on 08/06/2022,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of the administrative arrest imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.