45295/21;45494/21;14623/23;14626/23;15120/23;16923/23;17444/23;17733/23;17877/23;25420/23;25571/23;25573/23;25636/23;25638/23;25701/23;25725/23;25810/23;26029/23;26243/23;26245/23;26451/23;26455/23;26588/23;26650/23;27042/23;27118/23
WyrokETPCz2024-05-14ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0514JUD004529521
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy środki podjęte wobec organizatorów i uczestników zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, w tym aresztowania, skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne, niezgodne z prawem pozbawienie wolności, brak bezstronności w postępowaniach administracyjnych, użycie technologii rozpoznawania twarzy oraz brak efektu zawieszającego odwołania od kary, naruszyły prawa skarżących wynikające z art. 11, 5, 6 i 8 Konwencji oraz art. 2 Protokołu nr 7?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji, uznając, że interwencje w wolność zgromadzeń skarżących nie były "konieczne w społeczeństwie demokratycznym", opierając się na swoim ugruntowanym orzecznictwie dotyczącym wolności zgromadzeń i proporcjonalności ingerencji. W odniesieniu do innych skarg, Trybunał uznał, że również one ujawniają naruszenia Konwencji i jej Protokołów, powołując się na swoje wcześniejsze ustalenia dotyczące niezgodnego z prawem pozbawienia wolności, braku bezstronności w postępowaniach administracyjnych, nieuzasadnionego przetwarzania danych biometrycznych (rozpoznawanie twarzy) oraz braku efektu zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu administracyjnego. Trybunał nie znalazł żadnych faktów ani argumentów, które mogłyby skłonić go do odmiennego wniosku.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli organizatorami lub uczestnikami zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, w tym wieców "Wolny Nawalny" oraz protestów przeciwko wojnie na Ukrainie. W związku z tymi zgromadzeniami zostali zatrzymani i skazani za wykroczenia administracyjne, takie jak naruszenie art. 20.2 § 5 lub § 6.1 Kodeksu Wykroczeń Administracyjnych (CAO). Skargi dotyczyły nieproporcjonalnych środków, niezgodnego z prawem pozbawienia wolności (często przekraczającego ustawowe limity czasowe lub bez odpowiedniego uzasadnienia), braku bezstronności w postępowaniach administracyjnych, użycia technologii rozpoznawania twarzy do ich identyfikacji oraz braku efektu zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu administracyjnego.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie:
- Postanawia połączyć skargi.
- Uznaje, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia tych skarg, ponieważ dotyczą one faktów, które miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r.
- Uznaje skargi na podstawie art. 11 Konwencji oraz inne skargi na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału, zgodnie z załączoną tabelą, za dopuszczalne i stwierdza, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego rozpatrywania pozostałych skarg na podstawie art. 6 Konwencji.
- Stwierdza, że te skargi ujawniają naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji.
- Stwierdza, że doszło do naruszenia Konwencji i Protokołów do niej w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału (zob. załączona tabela).
- Orzeka, że państwo pozwane ma zapłacić skarżącym, w terminie trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, przeliczone na walutę państwa pozwanego według kursu obowiązującego w dniu rozliczenia, powiększone o odsetki proste od upływu trzech miesięcy do dnia rozliczenia.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PARFENOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 45295/21 and 25 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 May 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Parfenov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 April 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 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; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences, in order to identify, locate and arrest the applicant; 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. 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 paragraph 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 14 May 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
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]
45295/21
23/08/2021
Nikolay Pavlovich PARFENOV Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Stavropol
31/01/2021
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Stavropol
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
detention for 12 days
Stavropol Regional Court
07/04/2021
Stavropol Regional Court
16/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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), applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017);
escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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 - proceedings ended on 07/04/2021 and on 16/06/2021,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant (proceedings ended on 16/06/2021) was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
45494/21
30/08/2021
Nadezhda Viktorovna GRUBENKO Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Krasnoyarsk
31/01/2021
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Krasnoyarsk
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 15,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
20/05/2021
Krasnoyarsk Regional 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 - proceedings ended on 20/05/2021 and 05/08/2021.
3,500
14623/23
25/03/2023
Liliya Azatovna GAYFULLINA
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
25/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.27 p.m. until 8.28 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
14626/23
21/03/2023
Liliya Viktorovna KALAYEVA
Gathering in memory of Boris Nemtsov
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
21/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 10.00 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 3.30 a.m. on 28/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
4,000
15120/23
29/03/2023
Artur Vladimirovich OGANESOV
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/12/2022
Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a rally and his subsequent conviction (raised on appeal).
5,000
16923/23
03/04/2023
Stepan Vladimirovich FARAFONOV Kuroptev Aleksey Mikhaylovich
Balashikha
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
05/12/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.50 p.m. until 9.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
17444/23
30/03/2023
Matvey Vladimirovich KOZLOVSKIY
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
02/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
01/12/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.05 p.m. on 02/03/2022 until 4.00 a.m. on 03/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
17733/23
13/04/2023
Svetlana Aleksandrovna DOROZHKINA
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
13/12/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.45 p.m. until 8.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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). Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017). 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).
4,000
17877/23
18/04/2023
Maksim Vadimovich KOLESNIKOV Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
25/01/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.40 p.m. until 11.00 p.m. on 24/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019).
4,000
25420/23
01/06/2023
Anton Viktorovich BONDAREV Filatchev Oleg Vladimirovich
Moscow
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
01/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
25571/23
02/06/2023
Denis Yevgenyevich DEGTYAREV Arshinova Valeriya Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
13/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 9.00 a.m. on 07/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
25573/23
09/06/2023
Dmitriy Igorevich LOGINOV
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
26/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
09/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.33 p.m. on 26/02/2022 until 1.00 a.m. on 27/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
25636/23
29/05/2023
Dmitriy Sergeyevich SHANGIN
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
31/01/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 9.12 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
25638/23
24/05/2023
Olga Sergeyevna MALYKH
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
24/01/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.55 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 3.25 a.m. on 25/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017).
4,000
25701/23
31/05/2023
Anton Aleksandrovich GNATYUK
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
26/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
30/01/2023
(decision served on the applicant on the following day)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. on 26/02/2022 until 12.00 p.m. on 27/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
25725/23
19/06/2023
Andrey Yevgenyevich FILATOV Samorukova Anastasiya Orestovna
Moscow
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
27/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 8.35 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017).
4,000
25810/23
15/06/2023
Sarang Vladimirovna TSEBEKOVA
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
15/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.00 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 5.00 a.m. on 07/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
26029/23
16/06/2023
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ZAYTSEV
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
26/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
16/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. on 26/02/2022 until 12.10 a.m. on 27/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
26243/23
30/05/2023
Vladimir Nikolayevich BULAVKIN
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
30/01/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 5.00 a.m. on 07/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
26245/23
13/06/2023
Aleksandr Sergeyevich NOVOZHILOV
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
01/03/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 9.20 p.m. on 13/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
26451/23
30/05/2021
Yelizaveta Alekseyevna LYGINA Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
02/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
30/01/2023
3,500
26455/23
30/05/2023
Yekaterina Vladimirovna MALYSHEVA Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow City Court
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
05/04/2023
3,500
26588/23
27/06/2023
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GORCHAKOV
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
27/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention from 6.55 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 3.00 a.m. on 28/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
26650/23
20/06/2023
Andrey Sergeyevich LANDO
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
20/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 9.45 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 5.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
27042/23
15/06/2023
Alyona Sergeyevna REZNICHENKO
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
15/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. until 9.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
4,000
27118/23
15/06/2023
Karina Olegovna SHEYFER
Protest against war in Ukraine
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
15/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.07 p.m. until 10.40 p.m. on 27/02/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (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).
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