24963/20;25310/20;25915/20;25932/20;26165/20;26170/20;26185/20;26192/20;26229/20;26260/20;27944/20;28053/20;28767/20;29705/20;29866/20;29881/20;30034/20;30067/20;31410/20;32294/20;32330/20;32659/20

THIRD SECTION CASE OF PIMENOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 24963/20 and 21 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 October 2022     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Pimenova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Darian Pavli, President,  Andreas Zünd,  Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 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 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention 7.  The applicants complained that the administrative escorting and arrest procedures and their ensuing detention had been in contravention of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, 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:... (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 has previously examined complaints brought by persons arrested and detained in similar circumstances in Russia. Having examined the applicable domestic regulations, the Court established that, under the Russian law, the escorting to a police station and ensuing detention there for the purpose of preparing an administrative arrest record would be permissible only if such record could not be drawn up at the place where the alleged offence had been discovered. The law also required that such escorting and detention be an “exceptional case” and necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative case or to secure the enforcement of any penalty to be imposed (see, for example, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 71, 15 November 2018). The authorities’ failure to comply with those requirements, in the Court’s view, led to it finding a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019). 9.  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 (see, on the issue of the three-month extension of the six-month time-limit, 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, Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022) and merits of these complaints. The Court discerns nothing in the official records submitted for it to conclude that recourse to such procedures was justified, as required by Russian law. It concludes that that the national authorities failed to comply with applicable rules of domestic procedure and considers that the applicants’ arrest and detention were not “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  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 well-established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies). 12.  In view of the above findings under, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  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.” 14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Saidov v. Russia [Committee], no. 31872/19, § 23, 26 July 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.  The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (as indicated in the appended table) admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty); 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); 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 13 October 2022, 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)) No. 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 and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     24963/20 22/06/2020 Natalya Borisovna PIMENOVA 1972  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – participated and arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court 02/10/2019). 3,900     25310/20 23/06/2020 Svyatoslav Vladimirovich MOROZOV 1993  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – participated and arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision - Moscow City Court, 30/09/2019). 3,900     25915/20 22/06/2020 Sergey Valentinovich LOGINOV 2000  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrest at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 30/10/2019). 3,900     25932/20 22/06/2020 Maksim Valeryevich NOVIKOV 1995  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision - Moscow City Court, 01/12/2019). 3,900     26165/20 22/06/2020 Yevgeiy Olegovich TARASENKOV 1997  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision - Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019). 3,900     26170/20 22/06/2020 Aleksey Igorevich BOYKOV 1981  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);    Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision - Moscow City Court, 10/10/2019). 3,900     26185/20 22/06/2020 Andrey Petrovich KONIK 1988  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019). 3,900     26192/20 22/06/2020 Vladislav Anatolyevich SAFRONOV 1973  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision - Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019). 3,900     26229/20 22/06/2020 Vasiliy Andreyevich KHODAKOV 1992  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019). 3,900   26260/20 22/06/2020 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich SVERKUNOV 1986  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision - Moscow City Court, 24/10/2019). 3,900   27944/20 25/05/2020 Kirill Aleksandrovich CHEVRIN 1991  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision - Moscow City Court. 06/11/2019). 3,900   28053/20 26/06/2020 Daniil Vitalyevich FILATOV 1998  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 16/12/2019). 3,900   28767/20 03/07/2020 Oleg Yuryevich VORONOV 1980  03/08/2019 04/08/2019 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 (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;    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 08/11/2019). 3,900   29705/20 13/07/2020 Andrey Aleksandrovich SERGEYENKOV 1984  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 14/10/2019). 3,900   29866/20 13/07/2020 Pavel Yuryevich KARTASHEV 2000  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow, City Court, 12/11/2019). 3,900   29881/20 13/07/2020 Konstantin Igorevich KISELEV 1994  03/08/2019 04/08/2019 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 (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 the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 14/10/2019). 3,900   30034/20 13/07/2020 Denis Viktorovich KNYAZEV 1977  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 22/01/2020). 3,900   30067/20 13/07/2020 Karina Eldarovna SADOVNIKOVA 1996  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 20/11/2019). 3,900   31410/20 02/07/2020 Konstantin Olegovich DYDZINSKIY 1975  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 02/10/2019). 3,900   32294/20 14/07/2020 Nikolay Sergeyevich MARKOV 1989  03/08/2019 04/08/2019 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 (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 the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 14/10/2019). 3,900   32330/20 15/07/2020 Leonid Valentinovich AVERIN 1992  03/08/2019 04/08/2019 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 (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 the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 16/10/2019). 3,900   32659/20 03/07/2020 Vitaliy Sergeyevich MEDKOV 1991  03/08/2019 03/08/2019 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 (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 the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016);   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - The applicant participated and was arrested at a manifestation on 03/08/2019 (final decision – Moscow City Court, 04/12/2019). 3,900   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.