CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.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 } .s4DED3943 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } Published on 5 February 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   48582/18 Diana Borisovna RUDAKOVA against Russia and 24 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 11 January 2024, 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     48582/18* 09/10/2018 Diana Borisovna RUDAKOVA 1991 Leonid Alkhasovich Abgadzhava Moscow 30/04/2018, 1.30 p.m. 30/04/2018, 5 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), 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. 10 (1) - Freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 29/10/2017 in support of A. Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Tambov Regional Court, 02/05/2018, detention for 10 days     8968/20 05/02/2020 Aleksandr Prokopyevich GABYSHEV 1968 Elza Rinatovna Nisanbekova Kazan 10/12/2019 11/12/2019 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: Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), 16/01/2020,   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 officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     9040/20 05/02/2020 Kirill Yuryevich MUKHTARULIN Elza Rinatovna Nisanbekova Kazan 10/12/2019 11/12/2019 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: Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), 16/01/2020,   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 officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based       9404/20 05/02/2020 Aleksey Mikhaylovich BRYLEV 1978 Elza Rinatovna Nisanbekova Kazan 10/12/2019 11/12/2019 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: Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), 16/01/2020,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     15403/21* 12/03/2021 Artem Valeryevich VAZHENKOV 1981 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 28/01/2021, 3.10 p.m. 28/01/2021, 7.17 p.m., until court hearing 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: 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 - final decisions: Tver Regional Court, 02/02/2021 and 19/05/2021 (two decisions),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 §   2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of A.   Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Tver Regional Court, 02/02/2021, detention of 10   days,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction for distribution of misleading information in mass media under article 13.15 §   9 of the CAO in publication posted in VKontakte on 01/05/2020 and 17/04/2021, final decisions: Tver Regional Court, 19/05/2021, fines of RUB 30,000 each     21326/21* 06/04/2021 Nikolay Sergeyevich SAPOZHNIKOV 1992 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 23/01/2021, 11.00 a.m. 23/01/2021, until court hearing 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: 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 - final decision: Tula Regional Court, 16/03/2021,   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 police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 §   2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Tula Regional Court, 16/02/2021, fine of RUB 20,000     21359/21* 06/04/2021 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich ZYKOV 1998 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 23/01/2021, 10.50 a.m. 25/01/2021, until court hearing 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: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no.   47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017), 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 - final decision: Kostroma Regional Court, 02/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - Freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 1.1 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Kostroma Regional Court, 02/02/2021, detention of 10 days     21407/21* 06/04/2021 Nikita Anatolyevich ILYIN 1998 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Vilnius 22/01/2021, 11.00 p.m. 23/01/2021,   9.00 a.m., until court hearing 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: 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Kurgan Regional Court, 02/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Kurgan Regional Court, 02/02/2021, detention of 9   days     26524/21* 04/05/2021 Azat Bayazitovich SHAYEKHOV 1989     24/01/2021, 2.00 p.m. 25/01/2021, 1.10 p.m., until court hearing 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), 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: 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 - Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 03/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram; final decision: Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 03/02/2021, detention of 10 days   39319/21* 22/07/2021 Vyacheslav Pavlovich NOSOV 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 01/02/2021, 3.30 p.m. 02/02/2021, 2.15 p.m., until court hearing 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: 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 - final decision: Tambov Regional Court, 17/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of A. Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Tambov Regional Court, 17/02/2021, detention of 7   days,   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   40153/21* 22/07/2021 Timofey Veleryevich TUMASHEVICH 1987 Sergey Aleksandrovich Loktev St Petersburg 29/01/2021, 4.15 p.m. 30/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal 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: 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 - final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 09/02/2021,   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 police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based, Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: St   Petersburg City Court, 09/02/2021, detention of 7   days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - Right of appeal against criminal conviction/sentence - 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   40192/21 21/07/2021 Oleg Olegovich SHAMBUROV 1988 Andrey Gennadyevich Lepekhin Chelyabinsk 23/01/2021, 3.57 p.m. 24/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal 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: 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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 27/01/2021, detention of 9   days,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction for insulting police officers under article 20.3.1 of the CAO in publications posted in Telegram and YouTube on 01 and 02/02/2021, final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 19/05/2021,   fine of RUB 15,000,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 27/01/2021,   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 police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based, final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 27/01/2021,   Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - failure to summon linguistic experts on whose depositions the conviction was based, final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 19/05/2021   44224/21* 23/08/2021 Natalya Sergeyevna PETERIMOVA 1987 Tatyana Olegovna Galeyeva Krasnoyarsk 23/01/2021 23/01/2021, raised on appeal on 17/06/2021 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: 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 and 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Instagram; final decisions: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/03/2021 and 17/06/2021, fines of RUB 200,000 in each set of the 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 police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based, final decision: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 17/06/2021   44935/21* 19/08/2021 Nadezhda Yuryevna NIZOVKINA 1986 Tatyana Sergeyevna Stetsura Kaliningrad 31/01/2021 31/01/2021, raised on appeal 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: 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on YouTube; final decision: Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic, 19/02/2021, detention of 10 days   47439/21* 10/09/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich PODSYTNIK 2000 Yelena Anatolyevna Mamedova Samara 23/01/2021, 4.10 p.m.             21/04/2021 25/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal on 12/03/2021   23/04/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal on 17/06/2021 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: 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 - final decisions: Samara Regional Court, 12/03/2021 and 17/06/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 §§ 2 and 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 and 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram and Twitter; final decisions: Samara Regional Court, 12/03/2021 and 17/06/2021, detention of 7 and 10 days, respectively,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant were executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO in both proceedings   54220/21* 19/10/2021 Kirill Vladimirovich SAYENKO 2002 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 20/04/2021, 4.00 p.m. 22/04/2021, 10.45 a.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal 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: 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 - final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 09/07/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 09/07/2021, fine of RUB 25,000   60898/21* 29/11/2021 Sergey Viktorovich DRESVYANNIKOV 1979   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 20/04/2021, 6.00 p.m. 22/04/2021, 3.00 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal 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 - final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 02/06/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Facebook; final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 02/06/2021, fine of RUB 20,000   5159/22 30/12/2021 Aleksandr Andreyevich KASHEVAROV 2003 Andrey Gennadyevich Lepekhin Chelyabinsk 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), 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) , 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) - 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 07/07/2021, fine of RUB 20,000   6116/22* 14/01/2022 Roman Vladimirovich SUBBOTIN 1975 Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova Moscow 21/04/2021, 11.00 a.m. 21/04/2021, 5.00 p.m., raised on appeal 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: 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 - final decision: Perm Regional Court, 15/07/2021,   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 police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 15/07/2021, fine of RUB 15,000   6493/22* 18/01/2022 Yakov Vasilyevich OVCHINNIKOV 1967 Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova Moscow 21/04/2021, 3.40 p.m.         13/03/2022 21/04/2021, 7.15 p.m., raised on appeal on 22/07/2021   13/03/2022, raised on appeal on 31/05/2022 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: 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Perm Regional Court, 22/07/2021 and 31/05/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 22/07/2021, fine of RUB 10,000,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for making publication discrediting the Russian army in VKontakte; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 31/05/2022, fine of RUB 30,000   17983/22* 13/03/2022 Nina Vasilyevna ANANINA 1984 Vladislav Vladimirovich Kosnyrev Syktyvkar 21/04/2021, 8.40 a.m. 21/04/2021, 12.30 p.m., raised on appeal 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: 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 13/10/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram; final decision: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 13/10/2021, fine of RUB 10,000   33215/22* 06/06/2022 Gennadiy Mikhaylovich LOMAKOV 1948 Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg 10/04/2022, 10.09 p.m.   11/04/2022, 08.55 a.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal 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: 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 28/04/2022 and 31/08/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for publication allegedly discrediting the Russian army on Facebook; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 31/08/2022, fine of RUB 40,000,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO for participation in an anti-war rally in Novouralsk on 31/03/2022, final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 28/04/2022, detention for 9 days,   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, final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 28/04/2021   41159/22 05/08/2022 Valentina Alekseyevna GERASIMOVA 1964 Aleksey Alekseyevich Levchenko Rostov-on-Don 06/03/2022, 2.50 p.m. 07/03/2022, 9.00 a.m., raised on appeal 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 Rostov Regional Court 11/05/2022,   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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s 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.   53383/22* 12/11/2022 Sergey STOLYAR 1983 Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya Strasbourg 19/07/2022 26/07/2022 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018) Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - no effective judicial review of detention pending expulsion   12067/23* 02/03/2023 Yuriy Aleksadrovich NOSOV 1988     26/04/2022 26/04/2022, raised on appeal 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), Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018) Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for wearing a green ribbon against war on 26/04/2022; final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 02/11/2022, fine of RUB 50,000