I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in DOMASHNEV v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-06-12
  • Communication date: 2024-05-16
  • Application number(s): 22832/18
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1, 6, 6-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
    Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.970194
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 10 June 2024 (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 16 May 2024, 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 table, 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 6 § 1 of the Convention relating to lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin v. Russia, no.
926/08, 20 September 2016).
APPENDIX – List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No.
Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth / registration Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law 22832/18* 08/05/2018 Sergey Vladislavovich DOMASHNEV 1966 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 06/02/2018.
Moscow City Court 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 the open court the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based; raised on appeal.
35602/18* 24/07/2018 Yevgeniy Valeryevich DOMOZHIROV 1974 Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Velikiy Novgorod fines of RUB 1,000 and RUB 2,000, administrative detention of 3 days (event of 27/04/2020) and 20 days (event of 20/04/2021) 06/07/2020, 12/10/2020, 19/10/2020, 02/09/2020, 22/04/2021 Vologda Regional Court Art.
5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 27-28/04/2020 (relevant complaint lodged on 05/01/2021, final decision issued on 06/07/2020) and on 06/07/2020 between 10.49 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. (relevant complaint lodged on 28/02/2021, final decision issued on 02/09/2020) and on 20-21/04/2021, Art.
10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on account of his convictions (1) on 26/01/2018 under Art.
319of the Criminal Code for having publicly insulted a police officer, sentence: 60 hours of community works (Savva Terentiyev v. Russia, no.
10692/09, 28 August 2018); (2) on 22/04/2021 under Art.
20.2 § 8 CAO for having published calls on social media for participation in a rally "Free Navalnyy" in Vologda on 21/04/2021; other restrictions, including on account of his repeated convictions for breaking self-isolation rules and thus preventing him from collecting and publishing information on issues of public interest (construction of a kindergarten in a park).
44832/19* 12/08/2019 Maksim Sergeyevich TRETYAKOV 1985 Anatoliy Mariyevich Svechnikov Yekaterinburg fine of RUB 10,000 12/02/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court Art.
5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the statutory three-hour period.
56790/21* 22/10/2021 Arkadiy Vladimirovich KOCHKUNOV 1978 Anastasiya Vladimirovna Kopteyeva Chita detention for 20 days 21/04/2021 Zabaykalskiy Regional Court (decision served to the applicant on the following day) Art.
10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art.
20.2 § 8 CAO for having published on 20/04/2021 on social media a call for the participation in the rally "Free Navalnyy" on 21/04/2021, Prot.
7 Art.
2 - Right of appeal against criminal conviction/sentence - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
20229/22 29/03/2022 PARTIYA NARODNOY SVOBODY 2016 Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg administrative fine of RUB 70,000 29/09/2021 Kirov Regional Court Art.
10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - conviction under Art.
20.2 § 2 CAO for having published on 23/01/2021 a call in the social network "VKontakte" to participate in a rally in support of Mr. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021.
Published on 10 June 2024 (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 16 May 2024, 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 table, 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 6 § 1 of the Convention relating to lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Karelin v. Russia, no.
926/08, 20 September 2016).
APPENDIX – List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No.
Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth / registration Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law 22832/18* 08/05/2018 Sergey Vladislavovich DOMASHNEV 1966 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 06/02/2018.
Moscow City Court 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 the open court the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based; raised on appeal.
35602/18* 24/07/2018 Yevgeniy Valeryevich DOMOZHIROV 1974 Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Velikiy Novgorod fines of RUB 1,000 and RUB 2,000, administrative detention of 3 days (event of 27/04/2020) and 20 days (event of 20/04/2021) 06/07/2020, 12/10/2020, 19/10/2020, 02/09/2020, 22/04/2021 Vologda Regional Court Art.
5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 27-28/04/2020 (relevant complaint lodged on 05/01/2021, final decision issued on 06/07/2020) and on 06/07/2020 between 10.49 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. (relevant complaint lodged on 28/02/2021, final decision issued on 02/09/2020) and on 20-21/04/2021, Art.
10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on account of his convictions (1) on 26/01/2018 under Art.
319of the Criminal Code for having publicly insulted a police officer, sentence: 60 hours of community works (Savva Terentiyev v. Russia, no.
10692/09, 28 August 2018); (2) on 22/04/2021 under Art.
20.2 § 8 CAO for having published calls on social media for participation in a rally "Free Navalnyy" in Vologda on 21/04/2021; other restrictions, including on account of his repeated convictions for breaking self-isolation rules and thus preventing him from collecting and publishing information on issues of public interest (construction of a kindergarten in a park).
44832/19* 12/08/2019 Maksim Sergeyevich TRETYAKOV 1985 Anatoliy Mariyevich Svechnikov Yekaterinburg fine of RUB 10,000 12/02/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court Art.
5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the statutory three-hour period.
56790/21* 22/10/2021 Arkadiy Vladimirovich KOCHKUNOV 1978 Anastasiya Vladimirovna Kopteyeva Chita detention for 20 days 21/04/2021 Zabaykalskiy Regional Court (decision served to the applicant on the following day) Art.
10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art.
20.2 § 8 CAO for having published on 20/04/2021 on social media a call for the participation in the rally "Free Navalnyy" on 21/04/2021, Prot.
7 Art.
2 - Right of appeal against criminal conviction/sentence - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
20229/22 29/03/2022 PARTIYA NARODNOY SVOBODY 2016 Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg administrative fine of RUB 70,000 29/09/2021 Kirov Regional Court Art.
10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - conviction under Art.
20.2 § 2 CAO for having published on 23/01/2021 a call in the social network "VKontakte" to participate in a rally in support of Mr. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021.
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth / registration Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law 22832/18* 08/05/2018 Sergey Vladislavovich DOMASHNEV 1966 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 06/02/2018.
Moscow City Court 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 the open court the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based; raised on appeal.
35602/18* 24/07/2018 Yevgeniy Valeryevich DOMOZHIROV 1974 Konstantin Aleksandrovich Markin Velikiy Novgorod fines of RUB 1,000 and RUB 2,000, administrative detention of 3 days (event of 27/04/2020) and 20 days (event of 20/04/2021) 06/07/2020, 12/10/2020, 19/10/2020, 02/09/2020, 22/04/2021 Vologda Regional Court Art.
5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 27-28/04/2020 (relevant complaint lodged on 05/01/2021, final decision issued on 06/07/2020) and on 06/07/2020 between 10.49 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. (relevant complaint lodged on 28/02/2021, final decision issued on 02/09/2020) and on 20-21/04/2021, Art.
10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on account of his convictions (1) on 26/01/2018 under Art.
319of the Criminal Code for having publicly insulted a police officer, sentence: 60 hours of community works (Savva Terentiyev v. Russia, no.
10692/09, 28 August 2018); (2) on 22/04/2021 under Art.
20.2 § 8 CAO for having published calls on social media for participation in a rally "Free Navalnyy" in Vologda on 21/04/2021; other restrictions, including on account of his repeated convictions for breaking self-isolation rules and thus preventing him from collecting and publishing information on issues of public interest (construction of a kindergarten in a park).
44832/19* 12/08/2019 Maksim Sergeyevich TRETYAKOV 1985 Anatoliy Mariyevich Svechnikov Yekaterinburg fine of RUB 10,000 12/02/2019, Sverdlovsk Regional Court Art.
5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the statutory three-hour period.
56790/21* 22/10/2021 Arkadiy Vladimirovich KOCHKUNOV 1978 Anastasiya Vladimirovna Kopteyeva Chita detention for 20 days 21/04/2021 Zabaykalskiy Regional Court (decision served to the applicant on the following day) Art.
10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art.
20.2 § 8 CAO for having published on 20/04/2021 on social media a call for the participation in the rally "Free Navalnyy" on 21/04/2021, Prot.
7 Art.
2 - Right of appeal against criminal conviction/sentence - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
20229/22 29/03/2022 PARTIYA NARODNOY SVOBODY 2016 Varvara Dmitriyevna Mikhaylova St Petersburg administrative fine of RUB 70,000 29/09/2021 Kirov Regional Court Art.
10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - conviction under Art.
20.2 § 2 CAO for having published on 23/01/2021 a call in the social network "VKontakte" to participate in a rally in support of Mr. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DOMASHNEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 22832/18 and 2 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
12 June 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Domashnev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Mateja Đurović, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2025,
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 (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They 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, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8. The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirement allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence which falls within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article 6 of the Convention. 9. 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. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, 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 § 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 well‐established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies). 12. The applicant in application no. 22832/18 further raised additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present case, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers 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 12 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Penalty
Date of final domestic decision
Name of court
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
22832/18
08/05/2018
Sergey Vladislavovich DOMASHNEV
1966

Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
fine of RUB 15,000
06/02/2018

Moscow City Court

1,000
44832/19
12/08/2019
Maksim Sergeyevich TRETYAKOV
1985

Svechnikov Anatoliy Mariyevich
Yekaterinburg
fine of RUB 10,000
12/02/2019

Sverdlovsk Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the statutory three-hour period. 4,000
20229/22
29/03/2022
PARTIYA NARODNOY SVOBODY
2016

Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
fine of RUB, 70,000
29/09/2021

Kirov Regional Court
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for having published on 23/01/2021 a call in the social network "VKontakte" to participate in a rally in support of Mr. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021
4,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DOMASHNEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 22832/18 and 2 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
12 June 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Domashnev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Mateja Đurović, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2025,
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 (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They 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, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8. The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirement allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence which falls within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article 6 of the Convention. 9. 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. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, 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 § 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 well‐established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies). 12. The applicant in application no. 22832/18 further raised additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present case, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers 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 12 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Penalty
Date of final domestic decision
Name of court
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
22832/18
08/05/2018
Sergey Vladislavovich DOMASHNEV
1966

Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
fine of RUB 15,000
06/02/2018

Moscow City Court

1,000
44832/19
12/08/2019
Maksim Sergeyevich TRETYAKOV
1985

Svechnikov Anatoliy Mariyevich
Yekaterinburg
fine of RUB 10,000
12/02/2019

Sverdlovsk Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the statutory three-hour period. 4,000
20229/22
29/03/2022
PARTIYA NARODNOY SVOBODY
2016

Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
fine of RUB, 70,000
29/09/2021

Kirov Regional Court
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for having published on 23/01/2021 a call in the social network "VKontakte" to participate in a rally in support of Mr. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021
4,000

No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Penalty
Date of final domestic decision
Name of court
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
22832/18
08/05/2018
Sergey Vladislavovich DOMASHNEV
1966

Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
fine of RUB 15,000
06/02/2018

Moscow City Court

1,000
44832/19
12/08/2019
Maksim Sergeyevich TRETYAKOV
1985

Svechnikov Anatoliy Mariyevich
Yekaterinburg
fine of RUB 10,000
12/02/2019

Sverdlovsk Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 09/09/2018 for compiling an offence report, detention beyond the statutory three-hour period. 4,000
20229/22
29/03/2022
PARTIYA NARODNOY SVOBODY
2016

Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
fine of RUB, 70,000
29/09/2021

Kirov Regional Court
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for having published on 23/01/2021 a call in the social network "VKontakte" to participate in a rally in support of Mr. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.