I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SEVOSTYANOVA v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-07-10
  • Communication date: 2019-11-25
  • Application number(s): 45840/17
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1-c, 6, 6-1, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)
    Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Review of sentence)
    Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)
    Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.740223
  • 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

The applicant, Ms Yuliya Aleksandrovna Sevostyanova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Lyubertsy, Moscow Region.
She is represented before the Court by Mr N. Zboroshenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
According to the official version of the events, on 29 December 2016 the police arrested the applicant for blocking the access to a construction site.
The applicant refused to comply with the policemen’s order to leave the site.
The applicant was taken to the police station where she was held pending examination of her case by a court.
On 30 December 2016 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow heard the applicant’s case on the charge of refusal to comply with the lawful policemen’s order.
The applicant maintained her innocence.
She denied having blocked access to the construction site.
She explained that the purpose of her visit to the area had been to find out if the felling of the trees had actually taken place in a historical park.
The court found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered her to pay a fine in the amount of 600 Russian roubles (RUB).
It heard the applicant, her lawyer and S., who had been present at the site with the applicant, and reviewed the administrative case‐file.
The court dismissed the applicant’s account of the events noting that it was not supported by the materials in the case-file or S.’s statement.
The applicant appealed.
She complained, inter alia, that the District Court had not questioned the police officers or examined the video footage of her arrest made by one of the persons present at the site.
On 14 February 2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.
The court heard the applicant, her lawyer and the police officers who had arrested the applicant.
It also examined the video footage finding it of poor quality.
The applicant was held at the police station for approximately 14 hours 30 minutes.
She spent the first three hours in a conference room.
Then the police questioned her and other detainees for another three hours.
After that the applicant and five other detainees of both genders were taken to a cell measuring 8 sq.
m. The cell was stuffy and the light was on all the time.
There were no beds.
The applicant had to remain seated.
No bed linen was provided.
A hot meal was given to her only once.
It included some instant food dissolved in hot water and was practically inedible.
There was no toilet in the cell.
The applicant was allowed to use the toilet in the building only once.
It was dirty and no toilet paper was available.
The toilet was not lit and the applicant had to leave the door open.
On 30 December 2016 at approximately 2.30 p.m. the applicant was taken to the courthouse in a van.
She was held in a van compartment with 16 other persons, the personal space afforded to each of them was about 0.3 sq.
m. The applicant was given no food or water until her release at 5 p.m.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of her detention at the police station.
The applicant complains under Articles 5 § 1 (c) and 13 of the Convention that her arrest and detention were unlawful.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts which considered her case were not impartial.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SEVOSTYANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 45840/17 and 2 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
10 July 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sevostyanova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 June 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). 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 principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 8. The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III). 9. In the leading cases of 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, 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 on 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 51-75, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07,§§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the to the delayed review, and the lack of suspensive effect, of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention). 13. Mr Nemtsev (application no. 71106/17) complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been unable to confront witnesses against him in the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraph 12 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 14. Ms Sevostyanova (application no. 45840/17) raised additional complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. Having examined them, the Court 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 or the Protocols thereto. This part of the application should therefore be dismissed as inadmissible. 15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 10 July 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 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
Amount awarded for non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
45840/17
17/06/2017
Yuliya Aleksandrovna SEVOSTYANOVA
1979

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
29/12/2016, 2.25 a.m.
30/12/2016,
2.30 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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – 14/02/2017, Moscow City Court. The national courts examined the applicant’s case in the absence of a prosecutor
4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

850 in respect of costs and expenses
71106/17
18/09/2017
Vitaliy Vladimirovich NEMTSEV
1976

Popkov
Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
26/03/2017,
3 p.m.
26/03/2017, 8.40 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), 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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - concerning both events of 26/03/2017 and 05/05/2018,

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest of 27/03/2017, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court,

Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - Anti-corruption manifestation Krasnodar on 26/03/2017, charges under article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, 10 days’ administrative arrest, final decision - Krasnodar Regional Court 07/04/2017; Manifestation against Mr Putin’s re-election Krasnodar on 05/05/2018, charges under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision - Krasnodar Regional Court 17/12/2018
5,000
7601/18
05/01/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich DYURYAGIN
1988

Mezak
Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
26/03/2017, 2.15 p.m.
26/03/2017, 7.10 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), 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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,

Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Anti-corruption group picket on Lenin avenue 2 in Ukhta on 26/03/2017. Conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO with fine of RUB 5,000. Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 05/07/2017
4,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SEVOSTYANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 45840/17 and 2 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
10 July 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sevostyanova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 June 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). 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 principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 8. The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III). 9. In the leading cases of 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, 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 on 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 applicants’ detention was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention (see the appended table). 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 51-75, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07,§§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the to the delayed review, and the lack of suspensive effect, of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention). 13. Mr Nemtsev (application no. 71106/17) complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been unable to confront witnesses against him in the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraph 12 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 14. Ms Sevostyanova (application no. 45840/17) raised additional complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. Having examined them, the Court 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 or the Protocols thereto. This part of the application should therefore be dismissed as inadmissible. 15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 10 July 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 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
Amount awarded for non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
45840/17
17/06/2017
Yuliya Aleksandrovna SEVOSTYANOVA
1979

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
29/12/2016, 2.25 a.m.
30/12/2016,
2.30 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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – 14/02/2017, Moscow City Court. The national courts examined the applicant’s case in the absence of a prosecutor
4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

850 in respect of costs and expenses
71106/17
18/09/2017
Vitaliy Vladimirovich NEMTSEV
1976

Popkov
Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
26/03/2017,
3 p.m.
26/03/2017, 8.40 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), 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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - concerning both events of 26/03/2017 and 05/05/2018,

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest of 27/03/2017, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court,

Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - Anti-corruption manifestation Krasnodar on 26/03/2017, charges under article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, 10 days’ administrative arrest, final decision - Krasnodar Regional Court 07/04/2017; Manifestation against Mr Putin’s re-election Krasnodar on 05/05/2018, charges under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision - Krasnodar Regional Court 17/12/2018
5,000
7601/18
05/01/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich DYURYAGIN
1988

Mezak
Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
26/03/2017, 2.15 p.m.
26/03/2017, 7.10 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), 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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,

Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Anti-corruption group picket on Lenin avenue 2 in Ukhta on 26/03/2017. Conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO with fine of RUB 5,000. Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 05/07/2017
4,000

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
Amount awarded for non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
45840/17
17/06/2017
Yuliya Aleksandrovna SEVOSTYANOVA
1979

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
29/12/2016, 2.25 a.m.
30/12/2016,
2.30 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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – 14/02/2017, Moscow City Court. The national courts examined the applicant’s case in the absence of a prosecutor
4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

850 in respect of costs and expenses
71106/17
18/09/2017
Vitaliy Vladimirovich NEMTSEV
1976

Popkov
Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
26/03/2017,
3 p.m.
26/03/2017, 8.40 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), 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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - concerning both events of 26/03/2017 and 05/05/2018,

Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative arrest of 27/03/2017, immediate execution of that sentence after conviction by a trial court,

Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - Anti-corruption manifestation Krasnodar on 26/03/2017, charges under article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, 10 days’ administrative arrest, final decision - Krasnodar Regional Court 07/04/2017; Manifestation against Mr Putin’s re-election Krasnodar on 05/05/2018, charges under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision - Krasnodar Regional Court 17/12/2018
5,000
7601/18
05/01/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich DYURYAGIN
1988

Mezak
Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
26/03/2017, 2.15 p.m.
26/03/2017, 7.10 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), 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)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,

Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Anti-corruption group picket on Lenin avenue 2 in Ukhta on 26/03/2017. Conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO with fine of RUB 5,000. Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 05/07/2017
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.