CASE OF YAKOVLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 46371/19 and 18 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Yakovlev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli , President , Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 December 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
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.
The applicants were represented by A. Bushmakov, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
The applicant s complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) . They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention
The applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non- compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so[.]”
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).
In the earlier cases against Russia, the Court has consistently held that (1) detention of an administrative suspect beyond the three-hour statutory period (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), or (2) “escorting” to the police station and ensuing detention of an administrative suspect in order to prepare an administrative offence record in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or necessity justifying the arrest and detention as required by the national legislation (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) have been contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention.
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) .
These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 its well-established case-law (see, among other numerous authorities, Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08 , 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings; Frumkin v. Russia , no. 74568/12 , 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15 , §§ 38‑42, 8 October 2019, concerning delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal).
In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses and/or to take part in the hearing.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
In applications nos. 7319/20 and 7945/20 the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.
The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
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;
Declares the complaints concerning unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (as specified in the appended table) admissible, decides that it is not necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the criminal (administrative) proceedings against them and dismisses the remainder of applications nos. 7319/20 and 7945/20 as inadmissible;
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 Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under 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 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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
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]
46371/19
13/08/2019
Leonid Olegovich YAKOVLEV
1985
14/05/2019
8.50 p.m.
15/05/2019
until the 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 (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 - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 1 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 4 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179‑191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15 , §§ 38‑42., 8 October 2019).
3,900
46381/19
13/08/2019
Aleksey Aleksandrovich VOROBYEV
1994
15/05/2019
2.45 a.m.
15/05/2019
until the 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 (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,
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 - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 2 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 4 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15 , §§ 38-42., 8 October 2019).
3,900
46384/19
13/08/2019
Anton Yevgenyevich TRUBIN
1997
14/05/2019
11.55 p.m.
15/05/2019
until the 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 (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,
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 - 22/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 1 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 5 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 22/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15 , §§ 38‑42., 8 October 2019).
3,900
46392/19
13/08/2019
Yegor Vyacheslavovich BALTINSKIKH
1998
15/05/2019
0.50 a.m.
15/05/2019
Until the 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 (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,
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 - 22/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 1 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 5 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 22/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15 , §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019).
3,900
46394/19
13/08/2019
Artem Andreyevich KOZLOV
1987
14/05/2019
14/05/2019
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 (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 - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 2 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 8 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15 , §§ 38-42., 8 October 2019).
3,900
46399/19
13/08/2019
Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich STARTSEV
1995
15/05/2019
02.15 a.m.
15/05/2019
until the 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 (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 - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.1 § 2 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative detention of 5 days for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 14/05/2019. Final decision - 18/05/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the court of first instance was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15 , §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019).
3,900
5480/20
14/01/2020
Stanislav Aleksandrovich MELNICHENKO
1988
15/05/2019
15/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 17/07/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 12,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 17/07/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
6756/20
18/01/2020
Konstantin Grigoryevich GUBAYEV
1987
15/05/2019
15/05/2019
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 (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 - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
6895/20
22/01/2020
Anastasiya Petrovna PEREVOZCHIKOVA
1994
16/05/2019
16/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings: Final decision - 21/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 16/05/2019. Final decision - 21/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
6984/20
22/01/2020
Anton Aleksandrovich KAPTELOV
1974
16/05/2019
16/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 16/05/2019. Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
7319/20
22/01/2020
Nikita Yuryevich STRAGIS
1982
16/05/2019
16/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings -. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant. was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 16/05/2019. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
7945/20
15/01/2020
Maksim Sergeyevich GOROSHKO
1998
16/05/2019
16/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 16/05/2019. Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
7996/20
22/01/2020
Ivan Viktorovich KOLYAGIN
1986
15/05/2019
15/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 07/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
9974/20
27/01/2020
Abdullokh Shukhratbek ugli ZHIYANBEKOV
2000
15/05/2019
15/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 08/10/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 08/10/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
10001/20
27/01/2020
Mikhail Alekseyevich DENISENKO
1996
15/05/2019
15/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
10007/20
27/01/2020
Semen Andreyevich LEONTYEV
2000
04/06/2019
04/06/2019
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 (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 tribunal - lack of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 28/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the app. was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 04/06/2019. Final decision - 28/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
10011/20
27/01/2020
Dmitriy Leonidovich DANILIN
1982
04/06/2019
04/06/2019
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 (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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 10/09/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 04/06/2019. Final decision - 10/09/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
10013/20
27/01/2020
Ruslan Maksimovich KOMADEY
1990
15/05/2019
15/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings -. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 13/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
10014/20
27/01/2020
Andrey Anatolyevich GOLDENKOV
1987
15/05/2019
15/05/2019
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 (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 tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings - Final decision - 20/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, the applicant was sentenced to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000 for participating in the demonstration against the church construction in Yekaterinburg on 15/05/2019. Final decision - 20/08/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court.
3,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.