CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 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 } Published on 26 February 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   26529/18 Aleksey Vladimirovich BOYAROV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 February 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     26529/18* 22/05/2018 Aleksey Vladimirovich BOYAROV 1996   Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius 21/08/2020, 3   p.m. 23/01/2021 21/08/2020, 7.48   p.m. 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), raised in the administrative proceedings Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators – conviction under Art.   20.2 § 5 CAO for a solo picket in support of A.   Navalnyy staged on 21/08/2020 in Kazan, sentenced to 20     hours of community work, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 14/10/2020, rotation - event classified as an assembly post facto (lodged on 10/02/2021);   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - (1) conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO for having published in social media "VKontakte" calls for participation in a rally "Free Navalnyy" on 31/01/2021, 20 days’ administrative arrest, final decision by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, on 12/02/2021 (lodged on 11/08/2021); (2) conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO for having published in social media "VKontakte" a call for participation in a rally "Free Navalnyy" on 21/04/2021, 20 days’ administrative arrest, final decision by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, on 07/05/2021 (lodged on 20/10/2021)   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - disproportionate interference with his freedom of assembly on account of his conviction under Art.   20.2 § 1 CAO for having exceeded the number of participants in the rally in support of A.   Navalnyy on 07/10/2017 indicated in the notification, penalty of RUB 5,000, final decision was taken by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 22/11/2017,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - in respect of the proceedings which ended with the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 12/02/2021 - the sentence of 20   day’s administrative arrest imposed on the applicant by the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan was executed immediately, on account of the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     13649/19* 22/02/2019 Tatyana Gavrilovna SEREBRENNIKOVA 1961       25/10/2018 01/11/2018 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no.   5865/07, § 67, 13   February 2018)       22094/19* 17/04/2019 Vladimir Yuryevich KARNAUKHOV 1974   Yelena Vladimirovna Yevmenova Krasnoyarsk 15/10/2018, 10.20 a.m. 17/10/2018, 4.50   p.m. 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)       58882/19* 23/10/2019 Eldar Zalimkhanovich DUNDAROV 1983       05/04/2019 1   p.m. 07/04/2019 7.40   p.m. 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)       26477/20* 09/04/2020 Mikhail Anatolyevich NOVOSELOV 1981   Maksim Vladimirovich Ageyev Kirov 22/10/2019, 9 a.m. 23/10/2019, 7.40   p.m. 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)