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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } Published on 5 February 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   84744/17 Ivan Eduardovich AYDAROV against Russia and 19 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     84744/17* 07/12/2017 Ivan Eduardovich AYDAROV 1998     08/09/2017, 5.15 p.m. 10/09/2017, 10.25 a.m., until court hearing 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)       21362/18* 16/04/2018 Ilya Vladimirovich TOLSTOY 1988     12/10/2017, 2.00   p.m. 13/10/2017, 1.00   p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 26/12/2017 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) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 26/12/2017     28261/18* 28/05/2018 Semen Aleksandrovich KOCHKIN 1993 Aleksey Vladimirovich Glukhov Novocheboksarsk 03/05/2018,   2.10 p.m.   22/01/2021,   8.10 p.m. 03/05/2018, 6.00 p.m.   23/01/2021, 9.15 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) 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 Chuvashia Republic 10/05/2018, 08/02/2021, 12/02/2021, 26/11/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of conviction (1) under article 20.2 §   8 of the CAO for having published on 01/05/2018 on his page "VKontakte" a video calling for the participation in the rally on 05/05/2018 in Cheboksary; final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 10/05/2018, detention of 10 days (2) under article 20.2 §   8 of the CAO for having published on 22/01/2018 a video on his page "VKontakte" a call for participation in the rally on 28/01/2018 against President’s elections; final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 19/04/2018, 80 hours of community works; (3) under article 20.2 §   1 of the CAO for having published on YouTube a video inviting his potential voters to a meeting on 29/08/2020 in Cheboksary; final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 20/10/2020, fine of RUB 10,000; (4) under article 20.2 §   8 of the CAO for having published a video on different social media calling for the participation in a rally "Free Navalnyy" on 23/01/2021, final decisions: Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic, 08/02/2021 and 12/02/2021, detention of 7 and 8 days,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – (1) 22/08/2020 at 4.07 p.m. Cheboksary, solo picket. Administrative charges and penalty: article 20.2 §   1 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 20/10/2020; (2) 23/08/2020 at 4.02 p.m. Cheboksary, solo picket. Administrative charges and penalty: article 20.2 §   1 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Final decision: Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 20/10/2020,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of conviction under article 20.3 §   1 of the CAO for publishing twice on social networks a symbol "Vote Smart" relating to Navalnyy and FBK and being considered by the authorities as extremist, each penalty of RUB 1,500, final decisions in both proceedings: the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic, 26/11/2021,   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: conviction of 04/05/2018, 10 days’ detention, appeal on 10/05/2018, conviction on 23/01/2021, 7 days’ detention, appeal on 08/02/2021 and conviction on 06/02/2021, 8   days’ detention, appeal on 12/02/2021     15866/19* 11/03/2019 Lavrentiy Viktorovich TSVETKOV 1993   Stanislav Vladimirovich NADYRSHIN 1992   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou 09/09/2018, 5.15 p.m. 11/09/2018, 6.00   p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 20/09/2021 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) , 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)       27860/19* 06/05/2019 Mukhammadyusuf Zikrullo ugli NEMATZHONOV 1991 Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Velikiy Novgorod 07/11/2018     13/11/2018 09/11/2018, violation of migration rules   14/11/2018, disorderly conduct 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);   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)       2371/20* 12/11/2019 Dmitriy Nikolayevich IVANOV 2000 Ashot Aleksandrovich Andreyev Syktyvkar 18/07/2019, 3.30 p.m. 19/07/2019, 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) Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - detention facility for suspects in administrative offence proceedings, Syktyvkar, 18/07/2019 - 20/07/2019,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities     11549/20 25/02/2020 Igor Nikolayevich GRISHIN 1956     27/07/2019 27/07/2019, 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. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - Inability to adduce evidence, conviction was based on accusation evidence; final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019, fine of RUB 10,000     13409/20* 28/02/2020 Aleksey Sergeyevich SMAGIN 1995     03/08/2019, 3.00 p.m. 04/08/2019, 12.10 a.m., raised on appeal, final decision: Moscow City Court, 14/10/2019 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) , 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)       46529/20* 22/09/2020 Aleksey Mikhaylovich KHOLKIN 1971 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg 30/06/2020     08/07/2020 30/06/2020, raised on appeal   08/07/2020, 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. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow Regional Court, 03/07/2020,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 §   2 of the CAO for making calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 16/06/2020 against construction of a plant published in VKontakte; final decision: Moscow Regional Court, 03/07/2020, detention of 3 days, Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.3 §   1 of the CAO for publication on Facebook allegedly inciting to hatred; final decision: Moscow Regional Court, 20/08/2020, detention of 5 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 in both proceedings   40528/21* 30/07/2021 Aleksey Maksimovich SHVARTS 1996     22/01/2021, 11.00 p.m.           20/04/2021, 12.40 p.m. 23/01/2021, 12.30 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 03/02/2021 (applications of 30/07/2021 and 12/08/2021)   22/04/2021, 10.10 a.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 29/04/2022 (two applications of 22/10/2021) 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 - 1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 §   8 of the CAO for making calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 published in VKontakte and Telegram; final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 03/02/2021 and 01/03/2021, detention of 30 days each; 2) administrative conviction under articles 20.2 §   8 and 19.3 §   1 of the CAO for making calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 published in Telegram and disobeying police; final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 29/04/2021, detention of 30 and 12 days, respectively;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 03/02/2021, 01/03/2021 and 29/04/2021,   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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based; final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 03/02/2021 and 01/03/2021   43078/21* 18/08/2021 Olga Anatolyevna SHKOLINA 1977 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Pomazuyev Moscow 23/01/2021, 12 p.m. 23/01/2021, 10 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: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 05/03/2021,   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: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 05/03/2021, fine of RUB 24,000,   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   44189/21* 18/08/2021 Marina Andreyevna YEVDOKIMOVA 1995 Yelena Anatolyevna Mamedova Samara 31/01/2021 01/02/2021, 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. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Samara Regional Court, 18/02/2021,   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 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on YouTube, VKontakte; final decision: Samara Regional Court, 18/02/2021, detention of 28 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   55918/21* 23/10/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich BUCHNEV 1980     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) 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 administrative proceedings on the charges under Article 20.2 §   5 CAO, Privokzalnyy District Court of Tula, 25/02/2021, Tula Regional Court, 16/04/2021. The applicant did not attend the appeal hearing. He received a copy of the relevant judgment on 23/04/2021   58475/21* 17/11/2021 Fedor Ivanovich ORLOV 1988     22/01/2021,   9.50 p.m.         04/12/2021, 1.00 p.m.     11/12/2021, 2.30 p.m.     26/03/2022, 12.30 p.m. 23/01/2022, 7.10 p.m.,   until court hearing, raised on appeal on 18/05/2021 (application of 17/11/2021)   06/12/2021, 1.35 p.m. (application of 31/05/2022)   12/12/2021, 4.30 p.m. (application of 31/05/2022)   27/03/2022 (application of 29/07/2022) 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: 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) , 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 - 1) 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: Voronezh Regional Court, 18/05/2021, detention of 9 days (application of 17/12/2021); 2) administrative conviction under articles 20.1 §   2 and 20.2 §   8 of the CAO for participation in a meeting against QR-codes on 04/12/2021 in Voronezh; final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 01/02/2022 and 03/02/2022, detention of 5 and 7 days respectively (application of 31/05/2022),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 18/05/2021, 01/02/2022 and 03/02/2022,   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 and adduce evidence; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 18/05/2021,   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 decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 01/02/2022 and 03/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - inability to adduce evidence; final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 29/03/2022, detention of 8 days, conviction under article 20.1 §   2 of the CAO for swearing in public   6144/22 08/01/2022 Vladimir Mikhaylovich KOTOV 1990 Yuliya Sergeyevna POSEVKINA 1976   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Mr Kotov 20/04/2021,   2 p.m. 22/04/2021, 0.25 a.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 08/07/2021 Applicant Kotov 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 - Mr Kotov: 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: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 08/07/2021, fine of RUB   20,000; Ms Posevkina: 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: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 13/10/2021, fine of RUB 10,000   13538/22* 08/02/2022 Nikita Gennadyevich ONEGIN 2001 Aleksey Mikhaylovich Kuroptev Balashikha 23/01/2021, 3.00 p.m. 24/01/2021, 7.00 p.m., final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 06/06/2022, compensation proceedings 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: 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. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - 1) arrest and detention on the day of manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Arkhangelsk, article 20.2 §   2 of the CAO, the applicant was not convicted under CAO, interference in the form of arrest and detention; compensation proceedings, claim refused, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 06/06/2022; 2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 §   5 of the CAO for participation in manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Arkhangelsk, final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 07/10/2021, fine of RUB 14,000,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 07/10/2021,   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 the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based, final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 07/10/2021   16629/22* 08/03/2022 Anatoliy Vladimirovich CHEPIKOV 1958 Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zubarev Vladivostok 25/07/2020   04/08/2020   08/08/2020 25/07/2020   04/08/2020   08/08/2020   The proceedings in respect of all three episodes of detention were subsequently discontinued (the applicant was acquitted). The relevant judgments were delivered on 09/09/2020, 12/10/2020 and 13/10/2020. Subsequently the applicant sought non-pecuniary damages for violation of his rights set out in Articles 5, 10 and 11. The court acknowledged that the applicant’s detention and prosecution had been unlawful ands and awarded him RUB 30,000 (approximately, EUR 362). The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 13/12/2021.   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)     7868/23* 16/01/2023 Anton Ivanovich IVANOV 1990     06/03/2022 06/03/2022, raised on appeal on 19/09/2022 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)     19124/23* 09/01/2023 Dmitriy Borisovich RUMSHINSKIY 1970     24/02/2022, 10.11 p.m. 25/02/2022, 2.25 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), 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. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - administrative conviction under article 20.2 §   5 of the CAO for anti-war solo picket held on 24/02/2022 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/09/2022, fine of RUB 20,000   28935/23* 25/06/2023 Konstantin Aleksandrovich KOTOV 1985     17/01/2021           27/01/2021, 7.30 p.m. 17/01/2021, raised in compensation proceedings, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 17/05/2023   28/01/2021, 9   a.m., raised in compensation proceedings, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 17/05/2023 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. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Detention of the applicant after conviction for disobeying police officers. On 28/01/2021 the applicant was convicted of disobeying police officers and sentenced to administrative detention of 5 days. On 13/10/2021 the conviction was quashed on appeal and proceedings were discontinued due to expiry of the limitation period. The court established that the applicant was a member of the elections commission and his persecution should had been authorised by a prosecutor and that his arrest and detention were unlawful. The applicant initiated compensation proceedings and was awarded RUB 20,000 (about EUR 380), final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 17/05/2021,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 19.3 §   1 of the CAO for disobeying police officers when participating in meeting with Navalnyy on 17/01/2021 at the airport; on 13/10/2021 the conviction was quashed and the applicant initiated compensation proceedings which ended on 17/05/2023; the amount of award: EUR 380