84744/17;21362/18;15866/19;27860/19;2371/20;11549/20;13409/20;46529/20;40528/21;43078/21;44189/21;55918/21;58475/21;6144/22;13538/22;16629/22;7868/23;19124/23;28935/23

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF AYDAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 84744/17 and 18 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Aydarov 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 6 June 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). Some applicants 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 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 (see the appended table for specific factual details). 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.  Some 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 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, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 133-38 and 148-153, 10 April 2018, relating to unlawful detention after conviction and compensation for unlawful arrest and detention; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning 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, related to the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of an administrative detention; 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 5 and 6 of the Convention. 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 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 the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) as set out in the appended table; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its 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 27 June 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]     84744/17 07/12/2017 Ivan Eduardovich AYDAROV     08/09/2017, 5.15 p.m. 10/09/2017, 10.25 a.m., until court hearing 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   3,000     21362/18 16/04/2018 Ilya Vladimirovich TOLSTOY     12/10/2017, 2 p.m. 13/10/2017, 1 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 26/12/2017 Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; 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: Voronezh Regional Court, 26/12/2017, fine of RUB 500 4,000     15866/19 11/03/2019 Lavrentiy Viktorovich TSVETKOV   Stanislav Vladimirovich NADYRSHIN   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou 09/09/2018, 5.15 p.m. 11/09/2018, 6 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 20/09/2021 Applicants taken to the police station as administrative suspects: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to establish the suspects’ identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicants remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled   3,000     27860/19 06/05/2019 Mukhammadyusuf Zikrullo ugli NEMATZHONOV Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod 07/11/2018       13/11/2018 09/11/2018, violation of migration rules     14/11/2018, disorderly conduct Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record; 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   3,000     2371/20 12/11/2019 Dmitriy Nikolayevich IVANOV Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar 18/07/2019, 3.30 p.m. 19/07/2019, 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 (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - detention facility for suspects in administrative offence proceedings, Syktyvkar, between 18/07/2019 and 20/07/2019,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities 3,000     11549/20 25/02/2020 Igor Nikolayevich GRISHIN     27/07/2019 27/07/2019, raised on appeal on 26/09/2019 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; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”   3,000     13409/20 28/02/2020 Aleksey Sergeyevich SMAGIN     03/08/2019,  3 p.m. 04/08/2019,  12.10 a.m., raised on appeal, final decision: Moscow City Court, 14/10/2019 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; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period   3,000     46529/20 22/09/2020 Aleksey Mikhaylovich KHOLKIN     30/06/2020     08/07/2020 30/06/2020, raised on appeal   08/07/2020, 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. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow Regional Court, 03/07/2020,   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 on 16/06/2020 against construction of a plant published in VKontakte; final decision: Moscow Regional Court, 03/07/2020, sentence to detention of 3 days,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.3 § 1 of the CAO for publication in Facebook allegedly inciting to hatred; final decision: Moscow Regional Court, 20/08/2020, 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 in both proceedings 6,000     40528/21 30/07/2021 Aleksey Maksimovich SHVARTS     22/01/2021, 11 p.m.           20/04/2021, 12.40 p.m. 23/01/2021, 12.30 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 03/02/2021; final decision on 03/02/2021 (applications of 30/07/2021 and 12/08/2021)   22/04/2021, 10.10 a.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 29/04/2022 (two applications of 22/10/2021) 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” Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events 1) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for making calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 published in VKontakte and Telegram; final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 03/02/2021 and 01/03/2021, sentence to detention of 30 days each;   2) administrative conviction under articles 20.2 § 8 and 19.3 § 1 of the CAO for making calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 published in Telegram, and disobeying police; final decisions: both by the Kurgan Regional Court on 29/04/2021, detention of 30 and 12 days, respectively,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Kurgan Regional Court, 03/02/2021, 01/03/2021 and 29/04/2021 6,000   43078/21 18/08/2021 Olga Anatolyevna SHKOLINA Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Moscow 23/01/2021, 12 p.m. 23/01/2021,  10 p.m., raised on appeal, final decision on 05/03/2021 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record 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: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 05/03/2021,   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: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 05/03/2021, fine of RUB 24,000 6,000   44189/21 18/08/2021 Marina Andreyevna YEVDOKIMOVA Mamedova Yelena Anatolyevna Samara 31/01/2021 01/02/2021, 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. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings - final decision: Samara Regional Court, 18/02/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - administrative conviction under art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published on YouTube, VKontakte; final decision: Samara Regional Court, 18/02/2021, detention of 28 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 6,000   55918/21 23/10/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich BUCHNEV     31/01/2021 31/01/2021, raised in the appeal statement, the final decision served on the applicant on 23/04/2021 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record 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 - in respect of the administrative proceedings on the charges under Article 20.2 § 5 CAO, Privokzalnyy District Court of Tula, 25/02/2021, Tula Regional Court, 16/04/2021; the applicant did not attend the appeal hearing; he received a copy of the relevant judgment on 23/04/2021 4,000   58475/21 17/11/2021 Fedor Ivanovich ORLOV     22/01/2021, 9.50 p.m.         04/12/2021, 1 p.m.   11/12/2021, 2.30 p.m.     26/03/2022, 12.30 p.m. 23/01/2021, 7.10 p.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal, final decision on 18/05/2021   06/12/2021, 1.35 p.m.     12/12/2021, 4.30 p.m.     27/03/2022 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 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”; 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 all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 18/05/2021, 01/02/2022 and 03/02/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events:   1) 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: Voronezh Regional Court, 18/05/2021, detention of 9 days;   2) administrative conviction under articles 20.1 § 2 and 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for participation in a meeting against QR-codes on 04/12/2021 in Voronezh; final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 01/02/2022 and 03/02/2022, detention of 5 and 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; final decisions: Voronezh Regional Court, 01/02/2022 and 03/02/2022 6,000   6144/22 08/01/2022 Vladimir Mikhaylovich KOTOV     Yuliya Sergeyevna POSEVKINA Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Mr Kotov 20/04/2021, 2 p.m. Mr Kotov 22/04/2021, 10.25 a.m., until court hearing, raised on appeal on 08/07/2021 Applicants taken to the police station as administrative suspects: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to establish the suspects’ identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicants remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events   Mr Kotov 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: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 08/07/2021, fine of RUB 20,000;   Ms Posevkina 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: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 13/10/2021, fine of RUB 10,000 5,000,  to be paid to Mr Kotov;   4,000, to be paid to Ms Posevkina   13538/22 08/02/2022 Nikita Gennadyevich ONEGIN Kuroptev Aleksey Mikhaylovich Balashikha 23/01/2021, 3 p.m. 24/01/2021, 7 p.m., final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 06/06/2022, compensation proceedings 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: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled; 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: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 07/10/2021,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly:   1) arrest and detention on the day of manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Arkhangelsk, article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, the applicant was not convicted under CAO, interference in the form of arrest and detention; compensation proceedings, claim refused, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 06/06/2022; 2) administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in manifestation in support of Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Arkhangelsk, final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 07/10/2021, fine of RUB 14,000 4,000   16629/22 08/03/2022 Anatoliy Vladimirovich CHEPIKOV Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok 25/07/2020   04/08/2020   08/08/2020 25/07/2020   04/08/2020   08/08/2020   The proceedings in respect of all three episodes of detention were Subsequently discontinued (the applicant was acquitted); the relevant judgments were delivered on 09/09/2020, 12/10/2020 and 13/10/2020; subsequently the applicant sought non-pecuniary damages for violation of his rights related to unlawful detention. The court acknowledged that the applicant’s detention and prosecution had been unlawful and awarded him RUB 30,000 (about EUR 300). Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 13/12/2021 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   2,700   7868/23 16/01/2023 Anton Ivanovich IVANOV     06/03/2022 06/03/2022, raised on appeal on 19/09/2022 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances”   3,000   19124/23 09/01/2023 Dmitriy Borisovich RUMSHINSKIY     24/02/2022, 10.11 p.m. 25/02/2022,  2.25 a.m.; raised on appeal, final decision on 19/09/2022 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 and to establish the suspect’s identity; detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period; detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for anti-war solo picket held on 24/02/2022 in Moscow; final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/09/2022, fine of RUB 20,000 6,000   28935/23 25/06/2023 Konstantin Aleksandrovich KOTOV     17/01/2021         27/01/2021, 7.30 p.m. 17/01/2021, raised in compensation proceedings, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 17/05/2023   28/01/2021, 9 a.m., raised in compensation proceedings, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 17/05/2023 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 of the applicant after conviction for disobeying police officers: on 28/01/2021 the applicant was convicted of disobeying police officers and sentenced to administrative detention of 5 days. On 13/10/2021 the conviction was quashed on appeal and proceedings were discontinued due to expiry of limitation period. The court established that the applicant was a member of elections commission and his persecution should had been authorised by a prosecutor and that his arrest and detention were unlawful. The applicant initiated compensation proceedings and was awarded RUB 20,000 (approximately 200 euros), final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 17/05/2023   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO for disobeying police officers when participating in meeting with Navalnyy on 17/01/2021 at the airport; on 13/10/2021 the conviction was quashed and the applicant initiated compensation proceedings which ended on 17/05/2023; the amount of award was RUB 20,000 (EUR 200) 4,800     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.