Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KRYUCHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 65075/19 (Judgment : Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee) [2023] ECHR 33 (12 January 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/33.html
Cite as: CE:ECHR:2023:0112JUD006507519, [2023] ECHR 33, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0112JUD006507519
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KRYUCHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 65075/19 and 18 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kryuchkov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 December 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applicants were represented by the lawyers of the former Memorial Human Rights Centre, an NGO currently de-registered in Moscow.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non- compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so[.]”
8. The Court reiterates that that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III).
9. In the earlier cases against Russia, the Court has consistently held that (1) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), or (2) “escorting” to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (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) have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility (including taking into account the three‑month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022)) and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table).
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in its well-established case-law (see, among other numerous authorities, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies).
13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses and to adduce evidence.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. In applications nos. 24956/20, 25908/20 and 29683/20 the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.
15. The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the criminal (administrative) proceedings against them and dismisses the remainder of applications nos. 24956/20, 25908/20 and 29683/20 as inadmissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty))
|
Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name Year of birth |
Start date of unauthorised detention |
End date of unauthorised detention |
Specific defects |
Other complaints under well-established case-law |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] | |
|
|
65075/19 18/12/2019 |
Dmitriy Kirillovich KRYUCHKOV 2000 |
03/08/2019 2.40 p.m. |
03/08/2019 8.10 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: 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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 02/10/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000. Moscow City Court, 02/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
65212/19 18/12/2019 |
Yuliya Alekseyevna AVDEYEVA 1998 |
03/08/2019 2.30 p.m. |
03/08/2019 11 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: 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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 12/09/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000. Moscow City Court, 12/09/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
65217/19 18/12/2019 |
Vadim Vyacheslavovich KHALEYEV 1985 |
03/08/2019 5 p.m. |
04/08/2019 5 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).
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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 18/10/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000. Moscow City Court, 18/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
6969/20 23/01/2020 |
Sergey Vasilyevich KUTSENKO 1978 |
03/08/2019 3.50 p.m. |
03/08/2019 11.40 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: 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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
10864/20 22/02/2020 |
Aleksandr Sergeyevich SUBBOTIN 1986 |
03/08/2019 5.10 p.m. |
04/08/2019 1 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).
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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
10876/20 07/02/2020 |
Yevgeniy Genrikhovich PTITSYN 1984 |
03/08/2019 4.41 p.m. |
04/08/2019 3 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).
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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 16/10/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000. Moscow City Court, 16/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
10901/20 07/02/2020 |
Stepan Vasilyevich AVDEYEV 1991 |
03/08/2019 3.10 p.m. |
03/08/2019 11 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: 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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 16/10/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Moscow City Court, 16/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
10947/20 07/02/2020 |
Pavel Yuryevich SHUBIN 1987 |
03/08/2019 5.10 p.m. |
04/08/2019 2 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).
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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 20/11/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Moscow City Court, 20/11/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
11958/20 20/02/2020 |
Pavel Viktorovich KHOROSHILOV 1987 |
03/08/2019 |
03/08/2019 |
|
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 10/09/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Moscow City Court, 10/09/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
12039/20 20/02/2020 |
Vladimir Gennadyevich MATVEYEV 1986 |
03/08/2019 4.30 p.m. |
04/08/2019 5 a.m. |
|
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 20/09/2019
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Moscow City Court, 20/09/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
12082/20 20/02/2020 |
Vladimir Vyacheslavovich SUMAROKOV 1999 |
03/08/2019 4.30 p.m. |
03/08/2019 11.40 p.m. |
|
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Moscow City Court, 08/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
12084/20 20/02/2020 |
Andrey Eduardovich VELDER 1978 |
03/08/2019 3.15 p.m. |
03/08/2019 9.50 p.m. |
|
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 02/12/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 12,000. Moscow City Court, 02/12/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
24954/20 22/06/2020 |
Georgiy Konstantinovich PAVLOV 2000 |
03/08/2019 3 p.m. |
04/08/2019 12 a.m. |
|
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 02/10/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000. Moscow City Court, 02/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
24956/20 22/06/2020 |
Anna Andreyevna SHENGELIYA 1993 |
03/08/2019
|
03/08/2019
|
|
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 02/10/2019
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 03/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000. Moscow City Court, 02/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
25319/20 23/06/2020 |
Roman Aleksandrovich PETIN 1979 |
10/08/2019 7.30 p.m. |
11/08/2019 3.30 a.m. |
|
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 10/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, 20 hours of community service. Moscow City Court, 26/09/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
25908/20 22/06/2020 |
Nikolay Aleksandrovich GORBACHEV 1994 |
11/08/2019 6.40 p.m. |
10/08/2019 0.10 a.m. |
|
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 16/01/2020.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Arrest of the applicant at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 10/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000. Moscow City Court, 16/01/2020. |
3,900 |
|
|
28531/20 03/07/2020 |
Vsevolod Artemovich SAVIN 2001 |
10/08/2019 6.05 p.m. |
10/08/2019 10.10 p.m. |
|
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - (seee Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016): Final decision - Moscow City Court, 28/10/2019.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 10/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000. Moscow City Court, 28/10/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
29683/20 13/07/2020 |
Aleksandra Aleksandrovna KALISTRATOVA 1990 |
10/08/2019 7 p.m. |
11/08/2019 4.30 a.m. |
|
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 10/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000. Moscow City Court, 14/11/2019. |
3,900 |
|
|
35945/20 30/07/2020 |
Grigoriy Alekseyevich GALKIN 1994 |
10/08/2019 5.55 p.m. |
10/08/2019 9.40 p.m. |
|
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - - The applicant’s arrest at the manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma in Moscow on 10/08/2019. Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000. Moscow City Court, 30/10/2019. |
3,900 |