Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF RECHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 13359/19 and 36 others â€“

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

25 May 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Rechenko and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Peeter Roosma , President , Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas ZÃ¼nd , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 4 May 2023,

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 (â€œthe Conventionâ€) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (â€œthe Governmentâ€) 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 disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of country-wide protests against retirement age hike organised by Aleksey Navalnyy on 9 September 2018. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

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, Â§Â§ 68 â€‘ 73, 17 January 2023).

7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.

8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see KudreviÄius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey , no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006 â€‘ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova , no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009).

9. In the leading cases of 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, 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 as to 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 interferences with the applicantsâ€™ freedom of assembly were not â€œnecessary in a democratic societyâ€.

11 . These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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 Â§ 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.

13 . Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, Â§Â§ 63-65, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, Â§Â§ 115-31, 10 April 2018; and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, Â§Â§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, Â§Â§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (â€œthe CAOâ€); Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, Â§Â§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect on an appeal against the sentence of detention; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, Â§Â§ 100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, Â§Â§ 150-59, 18 December 2018, relating to impossibility to question witnesses in a criminal trial (see the appended table).

14. Some applicants also raised other complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning various aspects of their deprivation of liberty and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

15. The Court has further examined the rest of the complaints raised by the applicants 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. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 Â§ 4 of the Convention.

16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case â€‘ law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, Â§ 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(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 25 May 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 Â§Â§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicantâ€™s name

Year of birth

Representativeâ€™s name and location

Location of the public event

Administrative charges

Penalty

Final domestic decision

Court Name

Date

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

13359/19

25/02/2019

Boris Nikolayevich RECHENKO

1994Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

14/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (brought to the police station at 2.15 p.m. and released at 2.50 p.m. on 09/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

14920/19

27/02/2019

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich KUTLENKOV

2000Mikhaylova Polina Pavlovna

Tyumen

St Petersburg

Article 20.2

Â§ 6.1 of CAO

detention for 10 days

St Petersburg City Court

18/09/2018

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“

detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 5.45 p.m. and brought to police station at 6.10 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 10.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

5,000

15637/19

12/03/2019

Anastasiya Ivanovna KADETOVA

(former SEMENOVA)

1998Vorobyev Viktor Viktorovich

Syktyvkar

Volgograd

Article 20.2 Â§ 8 of CAO

detention for 15 days

Volgograd Regional Court

12/09/2018

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 on 09/09/2018 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.

5,000

20104/19

01/04/2019

Aleksandr Akeksandrovich NALIMOV

1987Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich

Vladivostok

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Primorye Regional Court

17/10/2018

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

21598/19

01/04/2019

Aleksandra Sergeyevna KORCHAGINA

2000St Petersburg

Article 20.2

Â§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

St Petersburg City Court

09/10/2018

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 5.05 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 2.54 a.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

22606/19

07/04/2019

Sergey Sergeyevich SAVINOV

1989Belozerov Aleksey Sergeyevich

St Petersburg

Article 20.2

Â§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

St Petersburg City Court

01/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 6.20 p.m. and brought to the police station at 10.50 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 3 p.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

24398/19

29/04/2019

Yevgeniy Stanislavovich TALANKIN

1991Tiunov Sergey Yuryevich

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

16/01/2019

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested and brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 12.02 a.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

24818/19

20/04/2019

Anton Aleksandrovich ROMANYUK

1982Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna

St Petersburg

Article 20.2

Â§ 6.1 of CAO

detention for 4 days

St Petersburg City Court

01/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 6.05 p.m. and brought to the police station on 09/09/2018, released at 2.30 p.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

5,000

29920/19

11/05/2019

Artem Aleksandrovich SAVASTEYEV

1994Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich

St Petersburg

Article 20.2

Â§ 6.1 of CAO

20 hours of community work

St Petersburg City Court

18/10/2018

(the applicant was not informed of the final hearing in his case, was not served with a copy of the appeal decision and only learned about the appeal decision on 14/03/2019, as confirmed by the case-file materials)

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ detention at the police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 3.20 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.15 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 6.05 p.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

30078/19

28/05/2019

Yuriy Yuryevich SHAPOSHNIKOV

1987Karavayev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Nizhniy Novgorod

Article 20.2 Â§ 3 of CAO

detention for 12 days

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

29/11/2018

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

5,000

30260/19

21/05/2019

Roman Viktorovich DOLMATOV

1971Shchukin Andrey Yevgenyevcich

Nizhniy Tagil

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

22/11/2018

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.20 p.m., brought to the police station at 8.45 p.m. and released at 11 p.m. on 09/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

31381/19

27/05/2019

Nikita Sergeyevich VELTISHCHEV

1993Zinovyev Konstantin Mikhaylovich

Nizhniy Novgorod

Article 20.2

Â§ 6.1 of CAO

40 hours of community work

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

29/11/2018

3,500

31462/19

27/05/2019

Sergey Yuryevich FIGUROV

2000Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich

Nizhniy Novgorod

Article 20.2

Â§ 6.1 of CAO

60 hours of community work

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

06/12/2018

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

32349/19

29/05/2019

Svetlana Valeryevna BEKMANSUROVA

1991Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

25/12/2018

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

33446/19

11/06/2019

Yevgeniy Georgiyevich TIPIKIN

1987Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

05/03/2019

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 3.50 p.m., brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m. and released at 11.54 p.m. on 09/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

33511/19

11/06/2019

Dmitriy Igorevich REZNICHENKO

1990Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich

Saint-BarthÃ©lemy dâ€™Anjou

Komsomolsk-on-Amur

Article 20.2 Â§ 1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Khabarovsk Regional Court

12/12/2018

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested and brought to the police station at 2.10 p.m. and released after 7 p.m. on 09/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

34626/19

17/06/2019

Sergey Yegorovich PFAYFER

1969Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna

Oktyabrskiy

Novosibirsk

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Novosibirsk Regional Court

18/12/2018

3,500

35098/19

20/06/2019

Mikhail Fedorovich ABAKUMOV

1963Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

15/01/2019

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 3 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 2.40 a.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

37430/19

01/07/2019

Andrey Dmitriyevich MEDVEDSKIY

1991Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

16/01/2019

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.30 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 2.30 a.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

40133/19

19/07/2019

Aleksey Aleksandrovich KOLYADA

1983Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Krasnoyarsk

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

31/01/2019

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

43312/19

02/06/2019

Aleksey Viktorovich NEMTSEV

1987Chernyavskaya Andzhelika Viktorovna

Oktyabrskiy

Novosibirsk

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Novosibirsk Regional Court

22/01/2019

3,500

43948/19

02/08/2019

Nikolay Vladimirovich PETUKHOV

1991Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

06/02/2019

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 5 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.20 p.m., released at 10.40 p.m. on 09/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

44374/19

13/08/2019

Makar Viktorovich ALISOV

2000Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

13/02/2019

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 4.20 p.m. and brought to the police station at 4.40 p.m., released at 9.34 p.m. on 09/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

44375/19

01/08/2019

Venzhik Ravilyevich GAFIULLIN

1987Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

20/02/2019

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 3.30 p.m. and brought to the police station at 6.30 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 2 a.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

44401/19

07/08/2019

Yevgeniy Borisovich SMIRNOV

1993Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

St Petersburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 8 of CAO

fine of RUB 150,000

St Petersburg City Court

28/02/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested at 2 p.m. and brought to the police station at 2.45 p.m. on 09/09/2018, released at 12.50 p.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

6,000

46815/19

10/08/2019

Denis Vladislavovich BEKMANSUROV

1990Koroleva Galina Vasilyevna

Yekaterinburg

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Sverdlovsk Regional Court

10/04/2019

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

46953/19

28/08/2019

Viktoriya Sergeyevna BRAGINA

2001Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Khabarovsk

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Khabarovsk Regional Court

15/03/2019

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ detention at a police station in excess of three hours after the offence report was compiled (arrested and brought to the police station at 3.40 p.m., released at 6 p.m. on 09/09/2018)

4,000

47060/19

28/08/2019

Yelena Vladimirovna KOCHKINA

1988Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Perm

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Perm Regional Court

14/03/2019

3,500

47387/19

23/08/2019

Tatyana Nikolayevna POVALIY

1977Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Belgorod

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

30 hours of community work

Belgorod Regional Court 11/02/2019 (received on 18/03/2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

47474/19

28/08/2019

Liliya Kurtovna OTTO

1965Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich

Krasnoyarsk

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

28/03/2019

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

48304/19

28/08/2019

Aleksey Yuryevich KLIMISHIN

1996Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna

Moscow

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Moscow City Court

28/02/2019

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

49206/19

28/08/2019

Dmitriy Nikolayevich PLISHKIN

2000Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Perm

Article 20.2

Â§ 6.1 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Perm Regional Court

06/03/2019

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

50290/19

09/09/2019

Sergey Alekseyevich OSOKIN

1989Krasnodar

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Krasnodar Regional Court

30/07/2019

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

51747/19

22/09/2019

Ivan Albertovich SHCHETININ

1996Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich

Moscow

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

22/03/2019

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses â€“ inability to cross-examine in open court any witnesses, including police officers on whose written statements the applicantâ€™s conviction was based.

3,500

54204/19

07/10/2019

Semen Valeryevich TARAKANOV

1987Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich

Vilnius

Perm

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 15,000

Perm Regional Court

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

62601/19

23/11/2019

Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich KHLYNOV

1999Dubinin Nikolay Anatolyevich

Moscow

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Moscow City Court

28/05/2019

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

3,500

64296/19

27/11/2019

Nikita Aleksandrovich KHRAMOV

1995Nisanbekova Elza Rinatovna

Kazan

Article 20.2 Â§ 5 of CAO

fine of RUB 10,000

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

29/05/2019

Art. 5 (1) â€“ unlawful deprivation of liberty â€“ escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report (arrested at 5 p.m. and brought to the police station at 5.25 p.m. on 09/09/2018; released at 1.35 a.m. on 10/09/2018);

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.

4,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Menu

CASE OF RECHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF RECHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI