31649/22;45366/22;47561/22;48596/22;50068/22;53386/22;53842/22;54959/22;55424/22;55968/22;57573/22;77/23;788/23;804/23;895/23;918/23;937/23;1201/23;1250/23;1445/23;1571/23;1681/23;1771/23;2031/23;2115/23;2125/23;2369/23;2431/23;2435/23;2601/23;2654/23;3656/23;3858/23;21753/23
WyrokETPCz2024-03-21ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0321JUD003164922
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy aresztowania, zatrzymania i skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne uczestników pokojowych zgromadzeń publicznych, protestujących przeciwko działaniom wojennym, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w wolność zgromadzeń (art. 11 Konwencji) oraz naruszyły inne prawa konwencyjne, takie jak prawo do wolności i bezpieczeństwa (art. 5 ust. 1), prawo do rzetelnego procesu (art. 6 ust. 1) i prawo do odwołania w sprawach karnych (art. 2 Protokołu nr 7)?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził, że ingerencje w wolność zgromadzeń skarżących, polegające na ich aresztowaniu i skazaniu za wykroczenia administracyjne związane z udziałem w protestach, nie były „konieczne w społeczeństwie demokratycznym”. Trybunał oparł się na swojej ugruntowanej linii orzeczniczej dotyczącej wolności zgromadzeń i proporcjonalności ingerencji, a także na wcześniejszych wyrokach dotyczących podobnych kwestii w Rosji. Dodatkowo, Trybunał uznał, że inne skargi dotyczące bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności, braku bezstronności sądu administracyjnego oraz braku efektu zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu administracyjnego również ujawniły naruszenia Konwencji, odwołując się do konkretnych precedensów.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli uczestnikami protestu w Moskwie 6 marca 2022 r. przeciwko rosyjskiej inwazji wojskowej na Ukrainę. Zostali aresztowani, a następnie skazani za wykroczenia administracyjne, co doprowadziło do nałożenia na nich kar grzywny lub aresztu. Skarżący zarzucali nieproporcjonalne środki podjęte wobec nich jako uczestników zgromadzeń publicznych, a także inne naruszenia Konwencji związane z ich zatrzymaniem i postępowaniem sądowym, w tym bezprawne pozbawienie wolności, brak bezstronności sądu i brak efektu zawieszającego odwołania.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: łączy skargi; stwierdza swoją jurysdykcję; uznaje skargi na podstawie art. 11 Konwencji oraz inne skargi na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa za dopuszczalne i stwierdza, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego badania pozostałych skarg na podstawie art. 6 Konwencji; stwierdza naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji; stwierdza naruszenie Konwencji i Protokołów do niej w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa; zasądza od pozwanego państwa na rzecz skarżących kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem szkody majątkowej i niemajątkowej oraz kosztów i wydatków.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF STRELETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 31649/22 and 33 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 March 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Strelets and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 February 2024,
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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants in the protest on 6 March 2022 in Moscow against the Russian military attack on Ukraine. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
JURISDICTION
6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.
8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009).
9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
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 as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see 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.
13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo demonstrations; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, as to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;
Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention;
Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see 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 21 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Administrative / criminal offence
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
31649/22
21/05/2022
Artem Igorevich STRELETS Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
16/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 4 p.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;
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.
5,000
45366/22
06/09/2022
Boris Vladimirovich FESENKO
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
21/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.25 p.m. until 9.55 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
47561/22
16/09/2022
Anastasiya Dmitriyevna ILYINA Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
23/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. on 06/03/2022
4,000
48596/22
14/09/2022
Sofya Gyrmayevna KASSAYE Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
07/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2.15 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until
2 p.m. on 07/03/2022, when she was taken to the court;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 07/03/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
50068/22
06/10/2022
Andrey Vladimirovich RUMYANTSEV Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
07/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.44 p.m. until 9.18 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
53386/22
02/11/2022
Olga Aleksandrovna BRAYT Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
05/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. until 10.40 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
53842/22
10/11/2022
Dmitriy Andreyevich UVAROV
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
11/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.40 p.m. until 6.58 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
54959/22
29/10/2022
Anastasiya Gennadyevna SUSLINA Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
11/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.12 p.m. until 10 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
55424/22
11/11/2022
Gleb Vadimovich GULDYASHEV
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
29/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.55 p.m. until 10 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
55968/22
20/11/2022
Petr Yuryevich ALEYNIKOV
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 18,000
Moscow City Court
29/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.15 p.m. until 10.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
57573/22
29/11/2022
Yuliya Valeryevna MALININA Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
29/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.02 p.m. until 8.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
77/23
21/11/2022
Alina Sergeyevna YAKIMUK Baranova Nataliya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
23/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 2.15 a.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
788/23
11/11/2022
Yekaterina Vladimirovna KHRUSTALEVA
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.55 p.m. until 8.05 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
804/23
09/12/2022
Yekaterina Viktorovna MUKHARINOVA
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
09/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
895/23
30/11/2022
Anna Vyacheslavovna REKUS Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
25/07/2022 (the decision was served on the applicant a week later)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.20 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
918/23
27/11/2022
Kseniya Sergeyevna KOZARENKO Malinina Yuliya Valeryevna
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
27/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.34 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
937/23
03/12/2022
Aleksandr Anatolyevich BADYIN
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
03/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12.45 a.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
1201/23
25/11/2022
Nikita Anatolyevich OKHOTNIKOV
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
25/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 3.45 p.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;
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.
5,000
1250/23
09/12/2022
Aleksandra Valeryevna KAMYGINA Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
11/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. until 11 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
1445/23
09/12/2022
Sofiya Dmitriyevna GOROVAYA
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
09/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.40 p.m. until 10.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
1571/23
30/11/2022
Ivan Vsevolodovich NAZIMKIN
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
05/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.50 p.m. until 8.05 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
1681/23
17/12/2022
Georgiy Teymurazovich LILUASHVILI
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
25/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12.30 a.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
1771/23
10/12/2022
Sergey Ivanovich DOBRENKIY
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
11/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
2031/23
05/12/2022
Yakov Olegovich KULCHENKO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
05/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.50 p.m. until 10 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
2115/23
11/11/2022
Nikolay Nikolayevich TROSHIN Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
29/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.15 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12.40 a.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
2125/23
25/11/2022
Vera Vyacheslavovna MIZINA Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
25/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.53 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 6.35 p.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 07/03/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
2369/23
04/01/2023
Tatyana Nikolayevna SHARANKOVA Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
07/09/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12 a.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
2431/23
04/01/2023
Mariya Grigoryevna GOROBETS Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
09/09/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.45 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
2435/23
04/01/2023
Mariya Vladimirovna LOPUKHOVA Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
09/09/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.45 p.m. until 8.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
2601/23
14/12/2022
Nikolay Vladimirovich MINKO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
17/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 12.30 a.m. on 07/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
2654/23
08/12/2022
Miroslava Vladimirovna IVANOVA
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
05/09/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. until 8.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
3656/23
05/12/2022
Gleb Valentinovich ALEKSANDROV
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
05/08/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.10 p.m. until 9.40 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
3858/23
03/01/2023
Denis Aleksandrovich ZELENTSOV
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
05/09/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 11.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
21753/23
27/12/2022
Kristina Petrovna MARKUS
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
21/09/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.35 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 and from 7 p.m. on 05/04/2022 until 4.30 p.m. on 06/04/2022;
Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - the applicant was fined RUB 15,000 for staging a solo demonstration with the Ukrainian flag in Red Square in Moscow on 05/04/2022 (convicted under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for breaching rules on public events by staging her solo demonstration in a place adjacent to the residence of the President of Russia, final decision was taken by the Moscow City Court on 23/03/2023).
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 29.07.2026. · Źródło