Published on 26 June 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 3345/18 Daniil Igorevich OVCHAROV against Russia and 17 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

3345/18*

26/12/2017

Daniil Igorevich OVCHAROV

1998Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk

St Petersburg

12/06/2017 2.30 p.m.

13/06/2017 unspecified time

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)

Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant was charged under Art. 19.3 (1),

Art. 20.2 (5) of CAO for essentially the same action and sentenced to fines of RUB 1,000 and 10,000 respectively,

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of the proceedings final decisions for the two sets of the proceedings – St Petersburg City Court, 28/06/2017.

28457/18*

30/05/2018

Liparit Genrikovich AREVSHATYAN

1993Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

12/06/2017, 2.30 p.m.

12/06/2017, 11.40 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 - Moscow City Court, 20/03/2018, fine of RUB 20,000.

29504/18

13/06/2018

Artem Dmitriyevich PEREPELENKO

1994Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

12/06/2017, 3.50 p.m.

12/06/2017, 11.50 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 on the matter was taken by the Moscow City Court on 18/01/2018. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine of RUB 15,000;

Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair proceedings in view of the failure to obtain attendance of and cross-examine the witnesses (police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based).

34424/18

18/07/2018

Ivan Aleksandrovich ZENIN

1988Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

12/06/2017, 3.40 p.m.

12/06/2017, 10.00 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). 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, 30/01/2018, 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 - The applicant claims that despite his requests, the court failed to summon police officers K. and T. who arrested him and drew up an administrative offence record, while their statements were accepted as evidence against him.

38160/18*

04/08/2018

Rayudin Aydakadiyevich YUSUFOV

1967Dagir Ziyavdinovich Khasavov

Moscow

05/02/2018, 5.30 a.m.

05/02/2018, 6.03 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)

58382/18*

29/11/2018

Aleksey Pavlovich PROVOROV

1973Tatyana Aleksandrovna Tretyak

Gelendzhik

20/07/2018

01/09/2018

Authorities’ failure to specify the period of pre-trial detention (see Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04,

§§ 35-39, 17 June 2010)

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 25/01/2013 to 25/11/2017 (conviction by trial court) and from 20/07/2017 – pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court (the latest appeal decision was taken by the Supreme Court of the Adygeya Republic on 27/09/2018-) Defects: failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand,

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - In respect of a violation of Article 5 § 1.

7057/19

17/01/2019

Valentina Vyacheslavovna MANZHIYEVA

1960Sergey Vyacheslavovich Andropov

Moscow

18/07/2018

20/07/2018

Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)

29250/19

21/05/2019

Roman Vyacheslavovich FEDOROV

198704/11/2018, 3 p.m.

06/11/2018, time unspecified

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: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, 10 April 2018). 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 - 10/12/2018, Moscow City Court, fine of RUB 150,000

59858/19*

16/12/2019

Lyudmila Viktorovna BESHTOYEVA

1963Aleksey Viktorovich Avanesyan

Yekaterinburg

21/11/2019

10/12/2019

Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant

(see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)

Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) - applicant’s absence from criminal proceedings - The applicant fainted during the pronouncement of her conviction by the trial judge. The judge continued to pronounce the conviction. The appeal court dismissed the applicant’s complaint noting that she had been unable to hear the operative part of the judgment concerning the sentencing

62851/19*

25/11/2019

Konstantin Dmitriyevich KOLUZAKOV

1999Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Protasyuk

Nizhniy Novgorod

29/05/2019, 2 p.m.

30/05/2019, 6 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)

4441/20*

08/12/2019

Ilgiz Railyevich YAKHIN

1992

27/06/2019

04/07/2019

Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)

5987/20*

19/12/2019

Nail Salavatovich GAZIZOV

1992

27/06/2019

04/07/2019

Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant

(see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)

19616/20

16/03/2020

Mikhail Alekseyevich MOROZOV

196902/09/2019, 11 p.m.

03/09/2019, 9 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)

22273/20*

12/05/2020

Sergey Nikolayevich CHERNYSHEV

1975Dmitriy Petrovich Chekulayev

Moscow

18/11/2019, 7 a.m.

18/11/2019, 8.40 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). 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)

22292/20*

12/05/2020

Aleksandr Viktorovich MISHENIN

1984

14/01/2020

15/01/2020

Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018)

22834/20*

11/04/2020

Aleksandr Vladimirovich POMAZAN

1982Vladimir Borisovich Semkin

Tyumen

03/11/2019, 1 a.m.

03/11/2019, 12.38 p.m.

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). Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017)

36705/20*

02/08/2020

Anna Dmitriyevna KHARITONOVA

1982Ashot Aleksandrovich Andreyev

Syktyvkar

18/12/2019, 12 a.m.

19/12/2019

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). Detention as an administrative suspect: no written record of the administrative arrest (Art. 27.4 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017)

4593/21*

28/12/2020

Vladimir Vladimirovich ZUBKOV

1971Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Knyazkov

Yaroslavl

29/06/2020

03/07/2020

Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018).