48582/18;8968/20;9040/20;9404/20;15403/21;21326/21;21359/21;21407/21;26524/21;39319/21;40153/21;40192/21;44224/21;44935/21;47439/21;54220/21;60898/21;5159/22;6116/22;17983/22;41159/22;53383/22

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF RUDAKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48582/18 and 21 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rudakova 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 4 July 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol. 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 5 § 1 of the Convention 7.  The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 8.  The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III). 9.  In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91‑96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, 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 on 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocol, 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Manerov v. Russia, no. 49848/10, §§ 34-38, 5 January 2016, relating to the lack of effective judicial review of detention pending expulsion; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, §§ 41-87, 28 August 2018, regarding conviction for insulting police officers; Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 179-91, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38‑42, 8 October 2019, related to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of an administrative detention; and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings and conviction for publishing misleading information. In view of the findings in paragraphs above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 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 5 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 raised by some of the applicants; 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 and its Protocol 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 5 September 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 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location 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]     48582/18 09/10/2018 Diana Borisovna RUDAKOVA Abgadzhava Leonid Alkhasovich Moscow 30/04/2018, 1.30 p.m. 30/04/2018, 5 p.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 29/10/2017 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Tambov Regional Court, 02/05/2018, sentence to detention for 10 days 5,000     8968/20 05/02/2020 Aleksandr Prokopyevich GABYSHEV Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna Kazan 10/12/2019 11/12/2019 Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), 16/01/2020 4,000     9040/20 05/02/2020 Kirill Yuryevich MUKHTARULIN Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna Kazan 10/12/2019 11/12/2019 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), 16/01/2020 4,000     9404/20 05/02/2020 Aleksey Mikhaylovich BRYLEV Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna Kazan 10/12/2019 11/12/2019 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), 16/01/2020 4,000     15403/21 12/03/2021 Artem Valeryevich VAZHENKOV     28/01/2021, 3.10 p.m. 28/01/2021, 7.17 p.m., until court hearing 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Tver Regional Court, 02/02/2021 and 19/05/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Tver Regional Court, 02/02/2021, sentence to detention of 10 days 5,000     21326/21 06/04/2021 Nikolay Sergeyevich SAPOZHNIKOV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius 23/01/2021, 11 a.m. 23/01/2021, until court hearing 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Tula Regional Court, 16/03/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Tula Regional Court, 16/02/2021, fine of RUB 20,000       4,000     21359/21 06/04/2021 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich ZYKOV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius 23/01/2021, 10.50 a.m. 25/01/2021, until court hearing 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Kostroma Regional Court, 02/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 1.1 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Kostroma Regional Court, 02/02/2021, sentence to detention of 10 days 5,000     21407/21 06/04/2021 Nikita Anatolyevich ILYIN Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius 22/01/2021, 11 p.m. 23/01/2021,  9 a.m., until court hearing 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Kurgan Regional Court, 02/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Kurgan Regional Court, 02/02/2021, sentence to detention of 9 days         5,000     26524/21 04/05/2021 Azat Bayazitovich SHAYEKHOV     24/01/2021,  2 p.m. 25/01/2021, 1.10 p.m., until court hearing Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled; 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 03/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram; final decision: Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 03/02/2021, sentence to detention of 10 days 5,000   39319/21 22/07/2021 Vyacheslav Pavlovich NOSOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 01/02/2021, 3.30 p.m. 02/02/2021, 2.15 p.m., until court hearing 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Tambov Regional Court, 17/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Tambov Regional Court, 17/02/2021, sentence to detention of 7 days,   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   40153/21 22/07/2021 Timofey Veleryevich TUMASHEVICH Loktev Sergey Aleksandrovich St Petersburg 29/01/2021, 4.15 p.m. 30/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 09/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 09/02/2021, sentence to detention of 7 days,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - Right of appeal against criminal conviction/sentence - 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   40192/21 21/07/2021 Oleg Olegovich SHAMBUROV Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan 23/01/2021, 3.57 p.m. 24/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; 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 - final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 27/01/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 27/01/2021, sentence to detention of 9 days,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction for insulting police officers under article 20.3.1 of the CAO in publications posted in Telegram and YouTube on 01/02/2021 and 02/02/2021, final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 19/05/2021, fine of RUB 15,000 5,000   44224/21 23/08/2021 Natalya Sergeyevna PETERIMOVA Galeyeva Tatyana Olegovna Krasnoyarsk 23/01/2021 23/01/2021, raised on appeal on 17/06/2021 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 and 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Instagram; final decisions: Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, 25/03/2021 and 17/06/2021, fines of RUB 200,000 in each sets of the proceeding 7,500   44935/21 19/08/2021 Nadezhda Yuryevna NIZOVKINA Stetsura Tatyana Sergeyevna Kaliningrad 31/01/2021 31/01/2021, raised on appeal 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in YouTube; final decision: Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic, 19/02/2021, sentence to detention of 10 days 5,000   47439/21 10/09/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich PODSYTNIK Mamedova Yelena Anatolyevna Samara 23/01/2021, 4.10 p.m.           21/04/2021 25/01/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal on 12/03/2021   23/04/2021, until court hearing, raised on appeal on 17/06/2021 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Samara Regional Court, 12/03/2021 and 17/06/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 and 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 23/01/2021 and 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram and Twitter; final decisions: Samara Regional Court, 12/03/2021 and 17/06/2021, sentences to detention of 7 and 10 days,   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 in both sets of the proceedings 5,000   54220/21 19/10/2021 Kirill Vladimirovich SAYENKO Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 20/04/2021, 4 p.m. 22/04/2021, 10.45 a.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 09/07/2021 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 09/07/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 09/07/2021, fine of RUB 25,000 4,000   60898/21 29/11/2021 Sergey Viktorovich DRESVYANNIKOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 20/04/2021, 6 p.m. 22/04/2021,  3 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 02/06/2021 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. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 02/06/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on Facebook; final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 02/06/2021, fine of RUB 20,000 4,000   5159/22 30/12/2021 Aleksandr Andreyevich KASHEVAROV Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich Chelyabinsk 31/01/2021 31/01/2021, raised on appeal on 07/07/2021 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; 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. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 07/07/2021, fine of RUB 20,000 4,000   6116/22 14/01/2022 Roman Vladimirovich SUBBOTIN Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow 21/04/2021, 11 a.m. 21/04/2021, 5 p.m., raised on appeal on 15/07/2021 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Perm Regional Court, 15/07/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 15/07/2021, fine of RUB 15,000 4,000   17983/22 13/03/2022 Nina Vasilyevna ANANINA Kosnyrev Vladislav Vladimirovich Syktyvkar 21/04/2021, 8.40 a.m. 21/04/2021, 12.30 p.m., raised on appeal on 13/10/2021 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 13/10/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in Telegram; final decision: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 13/10/2021, fine of RUB 10,000       4,000   41159/22 05/08/2022 Valentina Alekseyevna GERASIMOVA Levchenko Aleksey Alekseyevich Rostov-on-Don 06/03/2022, 2.50 p.m. 07/03/2022, 9.00 a.m. Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to establish the suspect’s identity Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - conviction under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO (failure to obey the lawful order of the police to cease participation in the unauthorised rally), sentence to detention for 15 days, final decision Rostov Regional Court on 11/05/2022,   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   53383/22 12/11/2022 Sergey STOLYAR Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg 19/07/2022 26/07/2022 Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - no effective judicial review of detention pending expulsion 4,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.