CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } Published on 29 April 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   48841/14 Artem Talgatovich FAYZULIN against Russia and 13 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 4 April 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 table, 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     48841/14* 02/07/2014 Artem Talgatovich FAYZULIN 1976 Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov Sofia, Bulgaria 23/01/2021, 3.44 p.m. 25/01/2021, until the 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” 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, 27/01/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - Freedom of expression - In 2013 the applicant posted to a Facebook forum a call to terminate criminal proceedings against a Russian opposition leader, Mr Navalnyy; he was dismissed for an act discrediting a police officer; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 13/01/2014 (see Kudeshkina v. Russia , no. 29492/05, §§ 53-102, 26 February 2009),   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for participating in an unauthorised manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Perm; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 27/01/2021, sentence to 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     7472/17* 09/01/2017 Olga Kirillovna PANINA 1987 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Moscow 01/05/2016 01/05/2016, 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; 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity, detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest   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 City Court, 08/09/2016,   Art. 6 (1) - Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court the witnesses on whose written statements the conviction was based,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in Labour Day Rally on 01/05/2016 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/09/2016, fine of RUB 10,000     21478/17* 10/02/2017 Sasha Maymi KRIKKERIK 1991   Aasta Igorevna KUNTS 1997   Tatyana Sergeyevna Glushkova Moscow 01/05/2016 01/05/2016,   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; 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” 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 City Court, 10/08/2016, Art. 6 (1) - Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court the witnesses on whose written statements the conviction was based,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in Labour Day Rally on 01/05/2016 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/08/2016, fine of RUB 10,000     59725/17* 10/06/2017 Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949   Mikhail Aleksandrovich KRIGER 1960   Natalya Yevgenyevna NETISHINSKAYA 1962   Yuliya Vladimirovna USPENSKAYA 1981 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Moscow 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 Applicants taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”       83649/17* 17/11/2017 Ildar Ildusovich DADIN 1982   Viktor Viktorovich DAVYDOV 1956   Andrey Aleksandrovich GALKIN 1995   Mark Izrailevich GALPERIN 1968   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Moscow 12/06/2017, 2.30 p.m.     12/06/2017, 2 p.m.     12/06/2017, 4 p.m.   12/06/2017, 4 p.m.     05/07/2017 12/06/2017, 9.30   p.m. (Mr   Galkin), raised on appeal   13/07/2017, 2 p.m. (Mr   Galperin), raised on appeal   12/06/2017, 10.30   p.m. (Mr   Davydov)   14/06/2017 (Mr   Dadin)     06/07/2017 (Mr   Dadin, application of 21/11/2017, solo picket), raised on appeal   Applicants taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 15/06/2017, 26/07/2017 and 26/10/2017 (Mr Galkin, Mr Galperin and Mr Dadin (solo picket)),   Art. 6 (1) - 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 decisions: Moscow City Court, 15/06/2017, 26/07/2017 and 26/10/2017 (Mr Galkin, Mr Galperin and Mr Dadin (solo picket)),   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for a solo picket in support of Mr Gorskiy, civil activist, on 05/07/2017, final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/07/2017, fine of RUB 20,000 (Mr Dadin),   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IK-7 Karelia Republic, 10/09/2016 - 26/02/2017 (Mr Dadin),   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO for participation in an anticorruption manifestation, Moscow, 12/06/2017, Moscow City Court, 26/10/2017, fine of RUB 20,000 (Mr Galkin)   administrative conviction under article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO for participation in an anticorruption manifestation, Moscow, 12/06/2017, Moscow City Court, 15/06/2017, detention of 15 days (Mr Galperin),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities (Mr Dadin),   Art. 3 - torture or inhuman or degrading treatment - solitary confinement on 11/09/2016 for 15 days, on 29/09/2016 for 15 days and 11/10/2016 for 15 days for minor violations of prison discipline such as refusal to go for a walk; final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 02/11/2018 (application of 03/01/2019) (Mr Dadin)     15398/18* 23/03/2018 Andrey Yuryevich VOLOBUYEV 1992 Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow 06/10/2017,   5 p.m. 01/10/2017, 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Smolensk Regional Court, 12/10/2017,   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 in support of Navalnyy in Smolensk on 07/10/2017, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Smolensk Regional Court, 12/10/2017, detention of 8 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       20370/18* 12/04/2018 Rostislav Sergeyevich CHEBOTAREV 1995   Kirill Akeksandrovich PLOTNIKOV 1991   Oleg Valeryevich YEKIMOV 1992     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 01/05/2017 01/05/2017,   raised on appeal Applicants taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort; 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 12/10/2017 (Mr Plotnikov, 14/12/2017 (Mr Chebotarev), 12/01/2018 (Mr Yekimov),   Art. 6 (1) - Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court the witnesses on whose written statements the conviction was based,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in the Communist Party Rally on 01/05/2017 in Moscow; final decisions: Moscow City Court, 12/10/2017 (Mr   Plotnikov), 14/12/2017 (Mr Chebotarev), 12/01/2018 (Mr Yekimov), fine of RUB 15,000 each     20391/18* 18/04/2018 Mariya Yuryevna KATKOVA 1993     26/08/2017   02/02/2021 26/08/2017   03/02/2021 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; 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 30/10/2017 and 21/05/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court the witnesses on whose written statements the conviction was based,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in   1) Free Internet Rally on 26/08/2017 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 30/10/2017, fine of RUB 10,000,   2) Free Navalny Rally on 02/02/2021 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/05/2021, fine of RUB 15,000     1277/20* 10/12/2019 Aleksandr Olegovich ARCHAGOV 1987 Dmitriy Igorevich Zakhvatov Moscow 12/06/2019, 2 p.m.   24/07/2019,   9 a.m. 14/06/2019     24/07/2019, 2 p.m., raised on appeal on 01/08/2019 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” 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 City Court, 01/08/2019,   Art. 6 (1) - 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: Moscow City Court, 01/08/2019,   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 in Facebook to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 19/07/2019 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/08/2019, detention of 9 day   9109/20* 01/02/2020 Anton Aleksandrovich MUKHATAYEV 1989 Natalya Andreyevna Balog Krasnoyarsk 27/07/2019 29/07/2019, raised on appeal Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the 48-hour statutory period (Art.   27.5(3)-(4) and Art. 29.6(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: Moscow City Court, 02/08/2019,   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   20423/21* 16/03/2021 Dmitriy Sergeyevich PAPARETSKIY 1989 Mikhail Viktorovich Krasilnikov Moscow 15/07/2020,   8 p.m. 16/07/2020, 2.30 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity, detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/11/2020,   Art. 6 (1) - 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 conviction was based   21116/21* 23/04/2021 Irina Stepanovna NORMAN 1993 Yuliya Fedotova Yekaterinburg 31/01/2021, 2.50 p.m.   21/04/2021, 11.55 p.m. 01/02/2021, 10.40 a.m.     22/04/2021, 4 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity, detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events   1) rally to support A. Navalnyy on 31/01/2021 in Yekaterinburg, article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 02/02/2021; detention of 10 days   2) rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Yekaterinburg, article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 28/04/2021, detention of 30 days,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings in both sets of proceedings - Final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 02/02/2021 and 28/04/2021   55776/21* 05/11/2021 Vladimir Mikhaylovich GOSTEV 1990 Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov Vilnius 23/01/2021, 1.30 p.m. 23/01/2021, 8 p.m., raised on appeal Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”, 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 13/05/2021, fine of RUB 4,000,   Art. 6 (1) - 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     2690/24 29/12/2023 Radiy Vladimirovich IVANOV 1980 Vladimir Sergeyevich Nemanov Moscow 12/09/2022 12/09/2022 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity, detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - the applicant was arrested during the war protest on 12/09/2022; final decision: Moscow City Court, 29/08/2023, article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 15,000