Published on 24 April 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 75231/17 Irina Vladimirovna YURGILEVICH against Russia and 15 other applications

(see list appended)

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 30 March 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.

In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.

In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).

For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website .

SUBJECT MATTER

The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see 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).

APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

75231/17*

16/10/2017

Irina Vladimirovna YURGILEVICH

1965

12/06/2017, 2.50 p.m.

13/06/2017,

11.00 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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018).

1570/18*

07/12/2017

Polina Maksimovna TARASOVA

1995Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk

St Petersburg

12/06/2017, 2.00 pm

13/06/2017, in the evening, when the trial on administrative offence started

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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018); the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva , cited above, § 35).

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016): the applicant was convicted under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the CAO in two separate proceedings, that took place one after another on the same day. The appeal decisions were adopted respectively on 16 June 2017 and 23 June 2017 by the St Petersburg City Court;

Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;

Art. 6 (1) and (3) (b) - lack of time and facilities to prepare for the defence due to overnight detention in police station;

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for participation in one public event (Art. 19.3 § 1 and Art. 20.5 § 5 of the CAO respectively, consisting both in the same fact of disobedience of a lawful order). See Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 55-65, 8 October 2019.

1829/18*

11/12/2017

Grigoriy Sergeyevich KOLOVERTNOV

1992Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin

St Petersburg

12/06/2017, 2.10 p.m.

13/06/2017,

4.30 p.m., when the trial on the administrative offence started

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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018).

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 (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016): proceedings under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO: appellate decision, St. Petersburg City Court, 20/06/2017.Proceedings under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO: appellate decision, St. Petersburg City Court, 25/07/2017;

Art. 6 (1) and (3) (b) - lack of time and facilities to prepare for the defence due to overnight detention in police station;

Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;

Prot. 7 Art. 4 – right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings – the applicant was convicted twice for participation in one public event (Art. 19.3 § 1 and Art. 20.5 § 5 of the CAO respectively, consisting both in the same fact of disobedience of a lawful order). See Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 55-65, 8 October 2019.

21841/18

20/04/2018

Yelena Sergeyevna ROMANOVA

1986Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk

St Petersburg

06/12/2017, 5.00 p.m.

07/12/2017,

5.30 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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018). The applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva , cited above, § 35).

Art. 5 (4) - 1 - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention – after the applicant’s detention as an administrative suspect, the police dropped the administrative charges against her. The applicant then brought a claim under the Code of Administrative Proceedings, arguing unlawfulness of her detention. However, the courts refused to deal with it (final decision: 30/10/2017 Supreme Court of Russia). As a result, the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was never examined by a court.

32581/18*

02/07/2018

Roman Yevgenyevich YURZANOV

1975Aleksey Borisovich Vologin

Volsk

14/09/2016, 10.15 a.m.

14/09/2016,

4.00 p.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record; detained for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, and Timishev

v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017).Civil compensation claim: 14/03/2018 Saratov Regional Court (claims were granted in part on appeal, RUB 10,000 granted for unrecorded and unjustified deprivation of liberty and lack of medical assistance); last final decision: 28/06/2018 Supreme Court.

Art. 3 - inadequate medical treatment in detention – lack, on 14/09/2016, of supervision of and assistance to the applicant - intoxicated arrestee who fell down several times, and derisory compensation of RUB 10,000 (equivalent to EUR 142).

41958/18*

24/08/2018

David Nikolayevich KANKIYA

1989Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov

Sochi

09/02/2018, 11.15 a.m.

01/03/2018, 2.30 p.m.

09/02/2018,

2.25 p.m.

21/03/2018,

5.45 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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018).

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016): The applicant, a political activist of GOLOS NGO, was convicted of administrative offences under Art. 19.3 of CAO on 09/02/2018 and 21/03/2018. Upheld on appeal on 14/03/2018 and 17/05/2018 respectively;

Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - in the first set of proceedings of 09/02/2018 the trial court denied the applicant’s request to examine witnesses in his case – police officers. He substantiated why it had been crucial to summon them (compare to Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 150 ‑ 99, 18 December 2018).

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The applicant started serving his administrative detentions immediately after the first-instance court convictions (see Shvydka v. Ukraine , no. 17888/12, §§ 48 ‑ 55, 30 October 2014, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-91, 10 April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 37 ‑ 43, 8 October 2019);

Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression:

1) On 10/02/2018 the applicant - locally well-known political activist and coordinator of the "Golos" NGO - was planning to give a lecture relating to elections; on 09/02/2018 he was approached by the police near his home and told to present his identity document and follow them to the police station. The applicant was sentenced to administrative detention of 5 days, final decision - the Krasnodar Regional Court, 14/03/2018.

2) On 21/03/2018 the applicant was taking part in a press-conference relating to the recent presidential elections. He was then arrested and sentenced on the grounds of allegedly conducting himself violently. The applicant was sentenced to administrative detention of 5 days, final decision - the Krasnodar Regional Court, 17/05/2018 (see, mutatis mutandis , Assotsiatsiya NGO Golos and Others v. Russia , no. 41055/12, §§ 76, 88-89, 16 November 2021).

47107/18*

27/09/2018

Aleksey Alekseyevich KAREPIN

1985Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov

Vilnius

12/06/2017, 5.30 p.m.

13/06/2017,

2.40 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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016): The applicant was convicted by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 10/11/2017 under Art. 20.2-6.1 of the CAO (upheld by the Moscow City Court on 30/03/2018).

49955/18*

10/10/2018

Yana Vasilyevna ZAKHAROVA

1994Ivan Yuryevich Zhdanov

Vilnius

05/05/2018, 3.30 p.m.

05/05/2018, 9.30 p.m.

05/05/2018,

6.45 p.m.

07/05/2018 (unclear end time, apparently until the first instance 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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018).

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016): Conviction under Article 20.2 on 14/05/2018 by the Tsentralniy District Court of Tver, upheld on 17/05/2018 by the Tver Regional Court.

53031/18*

29/10/2018

Roman Ivanovich GOLUBEV

1988

15/06/2019

17/06/2019

Criminal detention. Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Ruslan Yakovenko

v. Ukraine , no. 5425/11, §§ 67-70, 4 June 2015, and Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018).

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of transportation - between 04/10/2016 and 12/05/2018 the applicant was transported in a van to court hearings more than twenty times, and each trip took about 7 hours. He was taken to a cell in the courthouse and made to wait there for several hours in cramped conditions (<0,5 sq. m. per person).

On 17/07/2018 he was transported between two detention facilities by train for six hours in cramped conditions

(<0,9 sq. m. per person).

14440/19*

22/02/2019

Sofiya Aleksandrovna BAZHENOVA

1989Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova

Moscow

14/06/2018, 4.15 p.m.

15/06/2018,

6.30 p.m. (when the applicant’s administrative offence trial started)

The applicant appealed against the decision of 15/06/2018 arguing that her deprivation of liberty by the police was unlawful and unjustified. On 23/08/2018, the regional court examined that complaint and dismissed it, finding that the applicant’s detention was lawful and did not exceed

48 hours.

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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018).

11380/20*

04/02/2020

Yuriy Aleksandrovich TAKZHANOV

1987Natalya Andreyevna Balog

Krasnoyarsk

27/07/2019, 8.45 p.m.

29/07/2019,

12.55 a.m. (when the first instance hearings on the applicant’s administrative offence case started)

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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018); the applicant remained in detention even after the said protocol was drawn up (see Korneyeva , cited above, § 35).

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84,20 September 2016);

Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate execution of administrative detention penalty deprived the appeal of any sense (see Shvydka v. Ukraine , no. 17888/12, 30 October 2014, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-91, 10 April 2018, and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 37 ‑ 43, 8 October 2019).

13665/20*

28/02/2020

Grigoriy Aleksandrovich MISHUTIN

1994Svetlana Yuryevna Perova

Moscow

10/08/2019, 6.05 p.m.

10/08/2019,

11.45 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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016): final decision: Moscow City Court on 06/09/2019;

Art. 6 (1) and (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.

15310/20*

10/03/2020

Vyacheslav Nikolayevich NEDOSEKOV

1981Ashot Aleksandrovich Andreyev

Syktyvkar

10/07/2019, 7.30 p.m.

11/07/2019, about noon (when the applicant’s trial on the administrative offence started)

(final decision in the administrative offence proceedings was issued on 06/11/2019 by the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic)

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, §§ 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018).

11434/21*

08/02/2021

Vyacheslav Vasilyevich KORNICHENKO

1978Darya Dmitriyevna Aksenova

Kolomna

15/07/2020, 11.00 p.m.

16/07/2020,

5.45 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, § 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018).

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016);

Art. 11 (2) - the applicant complained about the dispersal of the public assembly on 15/07/2020 in Moscow (see Frumkin v. Russia , no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013).

50533/21*

25/09/2021

Kirill Pavlovich SKRIPIN

1994Irina Vladimirovna Gak

Rostov-on-Don

25/03/2021, 2.51 a.m.

02/04/2021,

10 a.m.

25/03/2021,

6 p.m.

03/04/2021,

2.50 p.m.

Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).

Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search of 25/03/2020 - investigator’s decision on 24/03/2021; on 26/03/2021 the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don found the searches in the applicant’s apartment lawful; appeal dismissed by the Rostov Regional Court on 10/06/2021; no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: lawyer not allowed to assist the applicant during the search, search conducted in the night-time; no prior judicial authorisation, no justification of urgency of the search and of impossibility to obtain such authorisation.

4241/22*

23/12/2021

Leonid Semenovich PRIVALOV

1969Andrey Yevgenyevcich Shchukin

Nizhniy Tagil

18/11/2021, 2.13 p.m.

19/11/2021,

8.50 a.m. (when the applicant’s first instance hearings on the administrative offence case started)

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, § 34-35, 8 October 2019, Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019); the applicant was detained beyond the three-hour statutory period and without any “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, §§ 63 ‑ 64, 13 February 2018); the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva , cited above, § 35).

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016);

Two sets of administrative offence proceedings:

1) conviction under A19.3 of CAO for disobedience.

2) conviction under A20.6.1 (1) for violation of sanitary regulations (obligation to wear a sanitary mask).