48841/14;7472/17;21478/17;59725/17;83649/17;15398/18;20370/18;20391/18;1277/20;9109/20;20423/21;21116/21;55776/21;2690/24

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF FAYZULIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48841/14 and 13 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fayzulin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  María Elósegui, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Stéphane Pisani, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 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). Most of the applicants 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 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 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.  Most of the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, 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 Razvyazkin v. Russia, no. 13579/09, §§ 90-108, 3 July 2012, concerning solitary confinement; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with regard to disproportionate measures against participants and organisers of public assemblies; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, regarding the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, relating to permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38‑42, 8 October 2019, with regard 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 Article 6 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings 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 the 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 under Article 6 of the Convention; 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 Protocols 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 12 September 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 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]     48841/14 02/07/2014 Artem Talgatovich FAYZULIN Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich Sofia, Bulgaria 23/01/2021, 3.44 p.m. 25/01/2021, until the court hearing 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), 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- Final decision: Perm Regional Court, 27/01/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - freedom of expression - In 2013 the applicant posted to a Facebook forum a call to terminate criminal proceedings against a Russian opposition leader, Mr Nalavnyy; he was dismissed for an act discrediting a police officer; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 13/01/2014 (see Kudeshkina  v. Russia, no. 29492/05, §§ 53-102, 26 February 2009),   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for participating in an unauthorised manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Perm; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 27/01/2021, detention of 5 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     7472/17 09/01/2017 Olga Kirillovna PANINA Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow 01/05/2016 01/05/2016, raised on appeal 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), 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), 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/09/2016,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom  of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in Labour Day Rally on 01/05/2016 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 08/09/2016, fine of RUB 10,000 4,000     21478/17 10/02/2017 Sasha Maymi KRIKKERIK   Aasta Igorevna KUNTS   Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna Moscow 01/05/2016 01/05/2016, raised on appeal 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) , 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)       Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/08/2016,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in Labour Day Rally on 01/05/2016 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/08/2016, fine of RUB 10,000 4,000     59725/17 10/06/2017 (4 applicants) Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA   Mikhail Aleksandrovich KRIGER   Natalya Yevgenyevna NETISHINSKAYA   Yuliya Vladimirovna USPENSKAYA   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 Applicants taken to the police station as administrative suspects: 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 administrative suspects: 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)   3,000 to each of the applicants     83649/17 17/11/2017 (4 applicants) Ildar Ildusovich DADIN   Viktor Viktorovich DAVYDOV   Andrey Aleksandrovich GALKIN   Mark Izrailevich GALPERIN     Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow 12/06/2017, 2.30 p.m.         12/06/2017, 2 p.m.         12/06/2017, 4 p.m.     12/06/2017, 4 p.m.   05/07/2017 12/06/2017, 9.30 p.m. (Mr Galkin),       13/07/2017, 2 p.m. (Mr Galperin),       12/06/2017, 10.30 p.m. (Mr Davydov)   14/07/2017 (Mr Dadin)   06/07/2017 (Mr Dadin, application of 21/11/2017, solo picket),   Applicants taken to the police station as 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 administrative suspects: 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 15/06/2017, 26/07/2017 and 26/10/2017 (Mr Galkin, Mr Galperin and Mr Dadin (solo picket)),   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for a solo picket in support of Mr Gorskiy, civil activist, on 05/07/2017; final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/07/2017, fine of RUB 20,000 (Mr Dadin),   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IK-7 Karelia Republic, 10/09/2016 - 26/02/2017 (Mr Dadin),   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly:   administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO for participation in an anticorruption manifestation on 12/06/2017 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 26/10/2017, fine of RUB 20,000 (Mr Galkin);   administrative conviction under article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO for participation in an anticorruption manifestation on 12/06/2017 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 15/06/2017, detention of 15 days (Mr Galperin),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities (Mr Dadin),   Art. 3 - inhuman or degrading treatment - solitary confinement on 11/09/2016 for 15 days, on 29/09/2016 for 15 days and on 11/10/2016 for 15 days for minor violations of prison discipline such as refusal to go for a walk; final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 02/11/2018 (application of 03/01/2019) (Mr Dadin) 7,000 to Mr Dadin;   3,000  to Mr Davydov;     4,000 to Mr Galkin   5,000 to Mr Galperin     15398/18 23/03/2018 Andrey Yuryevich VOLOBUYEV Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow 06/10/2017, 5 p.m. 01/10/2017, 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 (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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - Final decision: Smolensk Regional Court, 12/10/2017,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for making calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 07/10/2017 in Smolensk, published in Vkontakte; final decision: Smolensk Regional Court, 12/10/2017, detention of 8 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     20370/18 12/04/2018 (3 applicants) Rostislav Sergeyevich CHEBOTAREV   Kirill Akeksandrovich PLOTNIKOV   Oleg Valeryevich YEKIMOV   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 01/05/2017 01/05/2017, raised on appeal 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), 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 - Final decisions: 12/10/2017 (Mr Plotnikov), 14/12/2017 (Mr Chebotarev), 12/01/2018 (Mr Yekimov),   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in the Communist Party Rally on 01/05/2017 in Moscow; final decisions: Moscow City Court, 12/10/2017 (Mr Plotnikov), 14/12/2017 (Mr Chebotarev), 12/01/2018 (Mr Yekimov), fine of RUB 15,000 each 4,000 to each of the applicants     20391/18 18/04/2018 Mariya Yuryevna KATKOVA     26/08/2017   02/02/2021 26/08/2017   03/02/2021 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. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017), 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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - Final decisions: Moscow City Court, 30/10/2017 and 21/05/2021,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in:   - Free Internet Rally on 26/08/2017 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 30/10/2017, fine of RUB 10,000,   - Free Navalny Rally on 02/02/2021 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/05/2021, fine of RUB 15,000 4,000     1277/20 10/12/2019 Aleksandr Olegovich ARCHAGOV Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow 12/06/2019, 2 p.m.   24/07/2019, 9 a.m. 14/06/2019     24/07/2019, 2 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 (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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/08/2019,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for making calls in Facebook to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 19/07/2019 in Moscow, final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/08/2019, detention of 9 day 5,000   9109/20 01/02/2020 Anton Aleksandrovich MUKHATAYEV Balog Natalya Andreyevna Krasnoyarsk 27/07/2019 29/07/2019, 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 (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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 02/08/2019,   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   20423/21 16/03/2021 Dmitriy Sergeyevich PAPARETSKIY Krasilnikov Mikhail Viktorovich Moscow 15/07/2020, 8 p.m. 16/07/2020, 2.30 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 (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 18/11/2020 4,000   21116/21 23/04/2021 Irina Stepanovna NORMAN Fedotova Yuliya Yekaterinburg 31/01/2021, 2.50 p.m.   21/04/2021, 11.55 p.m. 01/02/2021, 10.40 a.m.   22/04/2021,  4 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 (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) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings- Final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 02/02/2021 and 28/04/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events:   administrative conviction article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for making calls to participate in a rally to support Navalnyy on 31/01/2021 in Yekaterinburg; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 02/02/2021, detention of 10 days;   administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for making calls to participate in a rally to support Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Yekaterinburg; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 28/04/2021 detention of 30 days 5,000   55776/21 05/11/2021 Vladimir Mikhaylovich GOSTEV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius 23/01/2021, 1.30 p.m. 23/01/2021, 8 p.m. 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), 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 - Final decision: Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 13/05/2021, fine of RUB 4,000 4,000   2690/24 29/12/2023 Radiy Vladimirovich IVANOV Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow 12/09/2022 12/09/2022 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) Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - the applicant was arrested during the war protest and this arrest brought an end to the participation in an assembly on 12/09/2022; final decision: Moscow City Court, 29/08/2023, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.