38690/21;45712/21;45747/21;45827/21;45971/21;46191/21;47199/21;47244/21;47392/21;49422/21;49843/21;52352/21;56308/21;56414/21;56426/21;56846/21;56947/21;56960/21;57008/21;57498/21;58203/21;58980/21;59669/21;59978/21

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BOGDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 38690/21 and 23 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bogdanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  María Elósegui, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Stephane Pisani, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 June 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 organisers or participants of public assemblies. 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 organisers or 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.  Some 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 Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, 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 (CAO); and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.  In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ 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 remainder of the applicants’ complaints; Holds that there has been 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 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 27 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui  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 Name of the public event Location Date 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]     38690/21 15/07/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich BOGDANOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 12 days Moscow City Court 30/01/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 23/01/2021 to 25/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings; 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,   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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     45712/21 26/08/2021 Lyudmila Aleksandrovna TKHORENKO Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Vladivostok   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community work Primorye Regional Court 12/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000     45747/21 31/08/2021 Maksim Borisovich CHIRKOV Shimovolos Sergey Mikhaylovich Nizhniy Novgorod Protest rally   Nizhniy Novgorod   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 24/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the issue was addressed by the appeal court,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000     45827/21 04/09/2021 Ignat Valentinovich VOLOSHIN Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Velikiy Novgorod   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Novgorod Regional Court 11/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000     45971/21 30/08/2021 Eduard Aleksandrovich STADNIK Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow  Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community work Moscow City Court 06/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 3,500     46191/21 26/08/2021 Arkadiy Vadimovich PODKOPAYEV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO detention for 7 days Moscow City Court 02/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 5,000     47199/21 01/09/2021 Aleksandr Alekseyevich YELEFIRENKO Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 01/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000     47244/21 10/09/2021 Dmitriy Veniaminovich POVOLOKIN Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Syktyvkar   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 10/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in administrative proceedings,    Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative offence proceedings 4,000     47392/21 10/09/2021 Viktoriya Viktorovna PARKHOMENKO Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Anapa   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 07/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 3.10 p.m. to 8.10 p.m. on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled; Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO); the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   49422/21 01/10/2021 Dmitriy Alekseyevich POPOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 08/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention in the police station on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (the issue was examined by the appeal court in the administrative proceedings) 4,000   49843/21 24/09/2021 Anna Aleksandrovna GORYACHEVSKAYA Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Nizhniy Tagil   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Sverdlovsk Regional Court 31/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   52352/21 22/09/2021 Dmitriy Anatolyevich ZHARIKHIN Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   56308/21 15/11/2021 German Sergeyevich KHOMENKO Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 19/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   56414/21 23/10/2021 Irina Alekseyevna BARKHATOVA Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Sochi   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Krasnodar Regional Court 26/04/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings 4,000   56426/21 15/11/2021 Ivan Denisovich SKVORTSOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Novosibirsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 21/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   56846/21 31/10/2021 Mariya Borisovna BELYAYEVA Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Forum of Independent Deputies   Moscow   13/03/2021 article 20.33 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow 25/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention from 10.30 a.m. till 6 p.m. on 13/03/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity;  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); the complaints were raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings 4,000   56947/21 19/11/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NIKITIN Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Tula   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Tula Regional Court 07/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   56960/21 19/11/2021 Irina Yuryevna BUDKO Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy   Saratov   21/04/2023 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Saratov Regional Court 31/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 21/04/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   57008/21 19/11/2021 Nikolay Yevgenyevich ZLOBIN Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 07/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   57498/21 12/11/2021 Pavel Anatolyevich YARILIN Vasilyev Nikolay Vladimirovich Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 05/08/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 3,500   58203/21 27/11/2021 Vladimir Yevgenyevich NIKONOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Balakovo   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Saratov Regional Court 25/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 3,500   58980/21 27/11/2021 Ivan Aleksandrovich VLASOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Perm   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of compulsory work Perm Regional Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   59669/21 17/11/2021 Mikhail Denisovich SAMKOV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 01/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings 4,000   59978/21 03/12/2021 Anatoliy Fedorovich STUKACHEV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 11/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Arrest and detention on 23/01/2021 - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.