Published on 26 June 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 83654/17 Irina Grigoryevna SAVELYEVA and Aleksandr Nikolayevich SAVELYEV against Russia and 19 other applications

(see list appended)

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 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

83654/17

30/11/2017

Irina Grigoryevna SAVELYEVA

1955Aleksandr Nikolayevich SAVELYEV

1955Deceased in 2018

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk

St Petersburg

12/06/2017, 2 p.m.

12/06/2017,

8.30 p.m.

(first applicant) and 9.20 pm (second applicant)

Applicants 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 - proceedings under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021, fine of RUB 10,000; and proceedings under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO; final –

St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021; fine RUB 500

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (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 statements the applicants’ conviction was based

Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - convicted twice for participation in one public event –

1) proceedings under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO; St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021, fine of RUB 10,000; and

2) proceedings under Art. 19.3 § 1 CAO; final - St Petersburg City Court, 06/07/2021; fine RUB 500

3353/18*

18/12/2017

Maksim Olegovich GOLIKOV

1982Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin

St Petersburg

12/06/2017, 2.10 p.m.

13/06/2017,

4.30 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, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).

Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions taken by the St Petersburg City Court on 04/07/2017 (fine of RUB 10,000) and on 20/06/2017 (6 days’ administrative arrest)

Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - The applicant complains that he was punished twice for essentially the same actions under Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO (administrative detention for 6 days), Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (administrative fine of RUB 10,000)

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (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 statements the applicant’s conviction was based (in respect of the proceedings under Art. 20.2 (5) CAO), raised on appeal

3643/18*

27/12/2017

Irina Ilgizovna GILMANOVA

1996Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin

St Petersburg

12/06/2017

13/06/2017

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia,

no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

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

St Petersburg City Court, 22/08/2017; Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 13/06/2017, fine of RUB 5,000

Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 13/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO – St Petersburg City Court 22/08/2017

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

(in respect of the proceedings which ended with an order to pay an administrative fine of RUB 5,000)

3698/18*

18/12/2017

German Zalkovich BERSON

1948Valentin Valentinovich Pyshkin

St Petersburg

12/06/2017

13/06/2017

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia,

no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 13/06/2017; St Petersburg City Court, 25/07/2017, fine of RUB 10,000

Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - punishment for non-compliance with police orders in the context of the same public event on 12/06/2017 in St Petersburg, Marsovo pole: Art. 19.3 § 1 of CAO, Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO – St Petersburg City Court 25/07/2017

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

12066/18

03/03/2018

Aleksey Konstantinovich TSAREV

1989Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

26/03/2017, 3.40 p.m.

27/03/2017,

3.30 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,

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 taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/09/2017, ordered to pay a fine of RUB 10,000

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - failure to obtain attendance of the witnesses on the applicant’s behalf (police officers who arrested the applicant and prepared the relevant reports

22836/18*

08/05/2018

German Yevgenyevich FLEGONTOV

1997Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

12/06/2017, 6.10 p.m.

13/06/2017,

10 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 04/04/2018, ordered to pay a fine of RUB 10,000

23662/18*

09/05/2018

Aleksandr Viktorovich TETERYA

1966Irina Aleksandrovna Yatsenko

Moscow

02/11/2017, 10.45 p.m.

03/11/2017,

2 p.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia,

no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/11/2017, sentenced to 14 days’ administrative detention

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

24195/18*

08/05/2018

Artem Gennadyevich IVANKIN

1982Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov

Moscow

05/11/2017

07/11/2017

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 09/11/2017, sentenced to 14 days’ administrative detention

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 07/11/2017 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others, §§ 179-191; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§ 38-42)

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to examine the police officers on whose statements the conviction was based

24457/18

14/05/2018

Egor Pavlovich NEKHOROSHEV

1990Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

05/11/2017, 1.30 p.m.

06/11/2017, 3 p.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: 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 taken on 26/03/2018; convicted under Art. 19.3 of the CAO

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant was unable to examine the police officers on whose statements the conviction was based

7642/22*

13/01/2022

Natalya Aleksandrovna BURMAKINA

1983Yuliya Yevgenyevna Fedotova

Yekaterinburg

25/11/2021, 10.30 p.m.

28/11/2021, 7.10 p.m.

Unjustified length of detention with a view to transferring the applicant to an investigator (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 83, 26 June 2018). Detention without a court order beyond the 48 ‑ hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 82, 26 June 2018)

7872/22

27/01/2022

Sergey Aleksandrovich NIKOLAYCHENKO

1978Oksana Preobrazhenskaya

Strasbourg

28/07/2021, 12 p.m.

28/07/2021, 9.20 p.m.

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

8399/22*

10/01/2022

Rustem Galimullovich GAYFULLIN

1986Rushan Rafisovich Kabirov

Kazan

10/08/2021

11/08/2021

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 (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 - administrative detention of 3 days, 08/09/2021, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 11/08/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 179-191; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§ 38-42)

46147/22

15/09/2022

Mikhail Nikolayevich PIDENKO

1986Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova

St Petersburg

15/04/2022

16/04/2022, 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 - in respect of two sets of administrative proceedings, final decisions taken by the Stavropol Regional Court on 18/05/2022 (sentenced to 2 days’ administrative detention) and on 15/06/2022 (ordered to pay an administrative fine of RUB 40,000)

Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - the applicant claims that despite his requests, the court failed to call to court the police officers that arrested him and drew up an administrative offence record, thereby depriving the applicant of the opportunity to cross-examine the individuals providing key evidence for his conviction

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving his sentence (administrative arrest) before the appeal judgment was delivered (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 179-191; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§ 38-42)

Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - between 28/02/2022 and 10/03/2022 the applicant continuously posted various photos and videos on his page in Instagram calling upon others not to trust the official version of the events in Ukraine. On 15/04/2022 and 18/04/2022 administrative offence records under Art. 20.3.3 of the CAO were drawn up in respect of the applicant. On 16/04/2022 and 04/05/2022 the Georgiyevsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region convicted the applicant thereunder and sentenced him to a 2 days’ administrative detention and a fine of RUB 40,000 respectively. Upheld by the Stavropol Regional Court on 18/05/2022 and 15/06/2022.

54402/22

03/11/2022

Anastasiya Andreyevna MINASOVA

1994Narek Gurgenovich Akopyan

Vidnoye

03/03/2022, 9 p.m.

04/03/2022, 1.54 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Moscow City Court, 05/09/2022, fine of RUB 15,000

54409/22*

19/10/2022

Anton Viktorovich DYATLOV

199702/04/2022, 12.06 p.m.

02/04/2022, 5.29 p.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: 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 - Omsk Regional Court, 21/06/2022, fine of RUB 50,000

Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - calls for participations in the demonstration in Omsk on 02/04/2022 against the war in Ukraine, conviction under Art. 20.3.3 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB 50,000, 21/06/2022, Omsk Regional Court

286/23*

25/11/2022

Valeriya Sergeyevna PANFEROVA

1998Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev

Nizhniy Novgorod

06/05/2022, 1 p.m.

06/05/2022, 6 p.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: 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 - Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 28/07/2022, fine of RUB 30,000

843/23*

29/11/2022

Aleksey Yuryevich KHOLODAREV

1976Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov

Yekaterinburg

10/08/2022, 12.36 p.m.

10/08/2022

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - (1) On 24/02/2022 the applicant published a post against President Putin on Facebook. On 01/07/2022 he was convicted under

Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO (public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Russian Armed Forces) and ordered to pay a fine of

RUB 40,000. On 08/09/2022 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision.

(2) On 05/03/2017 the applicant published in Internet (Vkontakte) a video allegedly containing symbols of an extremist organisation de-registered in Russia (movement of Navalnyy Headquarters).

On 10/08/2022 the applicant was convicted under Art. 20.3 § 1 of the CAO and sentenced to 14 days’ administrative detention.

On 15/08/2022 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision.

(3) Conviction under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for publishing anti-war posts on Facebook on 26/04/2022, fine of RUB 40,000, final decision - Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 01/12/2022

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 all sets of proceedings

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, §§ 179-191; Martynyuk v. Russia, §§ 38-42) the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 10/08/2022 was executed immediately

1070/23*

19/12/2022

Roman Dmitriyevich SOLOVYEV

2002Polina Artemovna Petrova

Moscow

27/02/2022, 4.35 p.m.

28/02/2022,

1.20 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 19/08/2022, fine of RUB 15,000

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based and to submit evidence, including video recordings, in defence of the applicant’s version of events on an equal footing with the prosecution

1891/23*

08/12/2022

Anna Aleksandrovna BOYKOVA

1982Maksim Vitalyevich Simonov

Voskresenskiy

27/02/2022, 4.30 p.m.

28/02/2022,

1 a.m.

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/08/2022, fine of RUB 10,000

2626/23*

08/12/2022

Vladimir Aleksandrovich FATEYEV

1978Natalya Andreyevna Baranova

Moscow

17/06/2022

17/06/2022

Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34,

8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Tambov Regional Court, 08/08/2022, fine of RUB 50,000

Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 22/04/2022 the applicant published a post in support of Ukraine (picture of St Nicolas dressed in the uniform of the Ukrainian army), convicted on 23/06/2022 under Art. 20.3.3. (1) of CAO, fine of RUB 50,000. Final: 08/08/2022, Tambov Regional Court