I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KARELSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2020-10-06
  • Communication date: 2016-06-13
  • Application number(s): 66856/14;33606/15
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 6, 6-1, 6-3-d, 11, 11-1, 11-2
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)
    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)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.558737
  • 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

Applications nos.
66856/14 and 33606/15Aleksey Albertovich KARELSKIY and Others against Russiaand Maksim Vladimirovich ZAMARAYEV against Russialodged on 2 October 2014 and 19 June 2015 respectively The applicants are ten Russian nationals listed in the Appendix.
They are represented before the Court by the lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre and the Public Verdict Foundation (see the Appendix).
A.
The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On the morning of 21 February 2014 the applicants together with hundreds people came to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow.
They wanted to attend the hearing of the criminal case concerning the mass protests at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012.
The judgment was to be delivered at a public hearing that day.
However, the court-house was cordoned off by the police and the applicants could not get in.
The police officers did not explain the reasons for not allowing the public to enter.
The applicants remained outside among other members of the public aspiring to attend the hearing.
A short while later the crowd started chanting slogans such as “Freedom for the 6 May prisoners”, “Freedom for political prisoners” and “Russia without Putin”.
At different times the applicants were arrested and escorted to police stations.
Details as regards the administrative proceedings against each applicant are outlined in the Appendix.
B.
Relevant domestic law and practice 1.
The Public Events Act (Федеральный закон «О собраниях, митингах, демонстрациях, шествиях и пикетированиях») prohibits holding a public event in the vicinity of a court-house (section 8(2)).
2.
The relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of 30 December 2001, as in force at the material time, read as follows: Article 19.3 Refusal to obey a lawful order of a police officer “1.
Refusal to obey a lawful order or demand of a police officer ... in connection with the performance of his or her official duties related to maintaining public order and security, or impeding the performance by them of their official duties, shall be punishable by a fine of between 500 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 1,000, or administrative detention of up to fifteen days ...” Article 20.2 Breaches of the established procedure for the organisation or conduct of public gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, marches or pickets “5.
Breaches by participants in a public event of the established procedure for the organisation or conduct of public gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, marches or pickets ... shall be punishable by an administrative fine of between RUB 10,000 and RUB 20,000 or compulsory community service of up to forty hours ...” Article 25.1 Person against whom administrative proceedings have been instituted “1.
A person against whom administrative proceedings have been instituted is entitled to study the case-file material, to make submissions, to adduce evidence, to lodge applications and challenges and to have legal assistance ...” Article 27.2 Escorting of individuals “1.
The escorting or the transfer by force of an individual ... for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report, if this cannot be done at the place where the offence was detected and if the drawing-up of a report is mandatory, shall be carried out: (1) by the police ... 2.
The escort operation shall be carried out as quickly as possible.
3.
The escort operation shall be recorded in an escort operation report, an administrative offence report or an administrative detention report.
The escorted person shall be given a copy of the escort operation report if he or she so requests.” Article 27.3 Administrative detention “1.
Administrative detention or short-term restriction of an individual’s liberty may be applied in exceptional cases if this is necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative offence or to secure the enforcement of any penalty imposed by a judgment concerning an administrative offence ... ... 5.
The detained person shall have his or her rights and obligations under this Code explained to him or her, and a corresponding entry shall be made in the administrative arrest report.” Article 27.4 Administrative detention report “1.
Administrative detention shall be recorded in a report ... 2.
...
If he or she so requests, the arrested person shall be given a copy of the administrative detention report.” Article 27.5 Duration of administrative detention “1.
The duration of the administrative detention shall not exceed three hours, except in the cases set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.
2.
Persons subject to administrative proceedings concerning offences involving unlawful crossing of the Russian border ... may be subject to administrative detention for up to forty-eight hours.
3.
Persons subject to administrative proceedings concerning offences punishable by, among other administrative sanctions, ‘administrative arrest’ [административное задержание] may be subject to administrative detention for up to forty-eight hours.
4.
The term of the administrative detention is calculated from the time when [a person] escorted in accordance with Article 27.2 is taken [to a police station] ...” 3.
The Constitutional Court’s case-law on equality of arms and adversarial procedure in administrative proceedings reads as follows: Decision No.
630-O of 23 April 2013 of the Russian Constitutional Court “...
Articles 118 § 2 and 123 § 3 of the Russian Constitution provide that the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure should apply in court proceedings, including those under the Code of Administrative Offences of Russia [“the CAO”].
These constitutional provisions should be interpreted as guaranteeing the application of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure only to cases that are within the courts’ jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, administrative offences cases can be examined not only by the courts, but also by the authorities and officials (Articles 22.1 and 22.2 of the CAO).
Those charged with an administrative offence by an official or an authority may challenge those decisions in the courts (Article 30.1 § 1 of the CAO).
Such review proceedings should provide for equality of arms and adversarial proceedings ...” COMPLAINTS The complaints of each of the applicants are set out in the Appendix.
All the applicants complain under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention of the allegedly unlawful and disproportionate measures taken against them as peaceful protesters.
They further claim that their apprehension by the police officers during the gathering was arbitrary.
Five applicants also complain, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, that their detention at police stations after their arrest was unlawful.
All the applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings in which they were convicted of administrative offences fell short of the guarantees of a fair hearing.
They point out, in particular, that there was no prosecuting authority; that role was allegedly performed by the judge.
Six applicants also indicate that the courts based their findings exclusively on the evidence submitted by the police officers and dismissed their evidence.
Nine applicants complain, under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, that the courts refused to call prosecution witnesses, specifically the police officers who had arrested them at the gathering.
COMMON QUESTIONS 1.
Was the gathering in front of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow a “public event” in terms of the Public Events Act (Федеральный закон «О собраниях, митингах, демонстрациях, шествиях и пикетированиях»)?
Given the nature of the gathering and the impossibility of giving notice within the time-limit prescribed by law, was it a spontaneous assembly (see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no.
25691/04, §36, ECHR 2007-III, and Eva Molnar v. Hungary, no.
10346/05, § 36, 7 January 2009)?
2.
Was the gathering in question dispersed because of its proximity to a court-house?
If so, how is proximity defined under domestic law?
3.
As regards each applicant, has there been an interference with his freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, in respect of each applicant?
4.
Was each applicant’s arrest on 21 February 2014 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular: (a) What were the legal grounds for the applicant’s arrest during the public gathering on 21 February 2014?
(b) Did it pursue any aim enumerated in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
5.
As regards each applicant’s trial, did he have a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the administrative proceedings against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the absence of any prosecuting authority, whose role was allegedly performed by the judge?
CASE SPECIFIC

Judgment

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KARELSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 66856/14 and 33606/15)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
6 October 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Karelskiy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,María Elósegui,Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 66856/14 and 33606/15) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by ten Russian nationals (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated in the Appendix;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. On 21 February 2014 the applicants participated in a spontaneous gathering in front of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow where they came to attend a public hearing involving activists who were on trial in relation to mass disorders at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012. They were arrested during the gathering and convicted of administrative offences. THE FACTS
2. The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. The nine applicants in application no. 66856/14 were represented before the Court by the lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, the Public Verdict Foundation and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC). The applicant in application no. 33606/15 was represented by the lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre and EHRAC. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. On the morning of 21 February 2014 the applicants, among several hundred people, came to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow to attend the public delivery of the judgment in the criminal case concerning mass disorder at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012. However, the court-house was cordoned off by the police and the applicants could not enter. The police officers did not explain the reasons for not allowing the public into the building. 6. The applicants remained outside among other members of the public aspiring to attend the hearing. The gathering lasted for several hours and was peaceful. From time to time the police arrested some of the participants, and every time those present at the site responded by shouting “Shame on the police”. Occasionally someone would shout slogans such as “Freedom for the 6 May prisoners”, “Freedom for political prisoners” and “Russia without Putin”. A handful of banners with handwritten messages in support of the activists on trial were displayed. At different times the applicants were arrested and transferred to a police station. 7. Details as regards the administrative proceedings against each applicant are outlined in the Appendix. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
8. Article 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) provides that violation by a participant in a public event of the established procedure for conducting a public event is punishable with a fine of 10,000 to 20,000 roubles (RUB) or up to forty hours of community work. 9. For a summary of other relevant domestic provisions see Navalnyy v. Russia [GC] (nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 46-47, 15 November 2018), and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 223 and 226, 7 February 2017). 10. The domestic legal provisions governing administrative transfer (escorting) and detention are also set out in the case of Butkevich v. Russia (see no. 5865/07, §§ 33-36, 13 February 2018). 11. According to Article 31.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences, if a decision imposing an administrative punishment is not enforced during the two years from its entry into force, it can no longer be executed. The time when the enforcement of such a decision is suspended or stayed is excluded from the aforementioned period. THE LAW
12. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 13. The applicants complained of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of a peaceful public assembly, namely their arrest followed by their transfer to the police station and conviction for an administrative offence. They relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. However, this falls to be examined under Article 11, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”
14. The Court notes that the gathering in question was similar to the one examined in Navalnyy v. Russia [GC] (nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 110‐12, 15 November 2018) and considers that it fell within the scope of Article 11 of the Convention. It also finds that the applicants’ arrests, transfer to the police station and the ensuing sanctions constituted an interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 § 2. 15. The Government relied on the provisions of the Public Events Act (section 8) prohibiting public gatherings in the vicinity of court buildings. However, the Court has previously found that the provisions in question did not meet the “quality of law” requirement. Taking into account the absolute nature of the ban, coupled with the local executive authorities’ wide discretion in determining what is considered to be “in the immediate vicinity” of court buildings, it considered that the general ban on holding public events in the vicinity of court buildings was so broadly drawn that it could not be accepted as compatible with Article 11 § 2 (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 440‐41, 7 February 2017). 16. Furthermore, the applicants in the present case were convicted under Articles 19.3 § 1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of an official in connection with the exercise of his duties) and 20.2 § 5 (violation by a participant of the procedure for a public event) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) with reference to the failure to notify the authorities of the public gathering in accordance with the procedure prescribed by sections 5 and 7 of the Public Events Act. The proximity to the courthouse and the related ban set out in section 8 were not cited in the relevant domestic decisions. It follows that the applicants were arrested, transferred to the police station and charged with administrative offences for the sole reason that their gathering as such had not been authorised. 17. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and the proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‐XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009). 18. In the leading cases (see, for example, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 19. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the measures applied to the applicants as peaceful participants in the public assembly did not correspond to a pressing social need and were thus not necessary in a democratic society. 20. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. 21. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Articles 5 and/or 6 of the Convention, given the relevant well‐established case-law of the Court. These complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. 22. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these remaining complaints also disclose violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, as indicated in the appended table, in the light of its findings in Vyerentsov v. Ukraine (no. 20372/11, §§ 81-83, 11 April 2013); Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016); and Lashmankin and Others (cited above, §§ 486‐92). 23. As regards Article 5 § 1, the finding of a violation relates to the arbitrary character of the applicants’ arrests on 21 February 2014. Having reached this conclusion, in the circumstances of this case the Court does not consider it necessary to examine some of the applicants’ allegations that their detention on that day exceeded the statutory limit of three hours (see the appended table). 24. As regards Article 6 § 1, the complaints relying on this provision disclose a violation of the impartiality requirement on account of the absence of a prosecuting party (see the appended table). The Court notes that many of the applicants also complained under Article 6 § 1 about their convictions being based exclusively on the evidence submitted by the police officers and/or under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention about their alleged inability to cross-examine the police officers on whose written statements their conviction was based. The Court considers that as it has already concluded that the administrative proceedings, taken as a whole, were conducted in violation of the right to a fair hearing, it is not necessary to address the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Frumkin, cited above, § 168). 25. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
26. The applicants requested that the amount of non‐pecuniary damages be determined by the Court. 27. As regards pecuniary damage, some of the applicants claimed the amounts of the administrative fines paid by them (see the appended table). Other applicants did not submit any pecuniary damage claims because they did not pay the fines. They requested the Court to find that any attempt to enforce the domestic decisions ordering them to pay the fines would violate Article 11 of the Convention. 28. The Government submitted that the award of just satisfaction, if the Court finds a violation of the Convention, must be in accordance with the Court’s well-established case-law. 29. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the absence of the Government’s objections to these claims and to its case‐law concerning violations of Article 11 on account of arbitrary arrests at peaceful assemblies, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants 5,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 30. As regards the applicants who submitted that they had not paid the fines the Court notes that a decision ordering an administrative punishment is enforceable during two years from the time when the decision became final (see above). This period would normally have expired in 2016-2017 in respect of the applicants concerned. In the absence of any information as to enforcement of the relevant domestic decisions and, in particular, stay or suspension of their enforcement, the Court assumes that the decisions will not be enforced. 31. The applicants claimed the following amounts in respect of costs and expenses, including legal fees incurred by the applicants in the domestic proceedings and before the Court, the administrative expenses and the translation costs, itemised in the documents they have submitted:
- EUR 6,540 payable to the Public Verdict Foundation on account of the work performed by it;
- EUR 15,969 and 3,055 pounds sterling (GBP, approximately EUR 3,400) payable to EHRAC on account of the work performed by EHRAC and the Memorial Human Rights Centre. 32. The Government did not comment on these claims. 33. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the number of represented applicants, to its case-law and the repetitive nature of the legal issues examined in this case, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 9,350 in respect of costs and expenses (representing the joint award of EUR 8,500 in respect costs and expenses incurred by ten applicants in the domestic proceedings plus EUR 850 for their joint representation before the Court), plus any tax that may be chargeable on the applicants. This award is to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts, if necessary divided as indicated by the applicants. 34. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, except in relation to the part of costs and expenses payable to EHRAC, which is to be paid in euros:
(i) the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to each of the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 9,350 (nine thousand three hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses jointly, to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts, as indicated by the applicants;
(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 6 October 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Helen KellerDeputy RegistrarPresident

APPENDIX
No. Application
no. and date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Charge and penalty
Russian roubles
Final domestic decision details
Other complaints under well-established case-law
(i) admissible and disclosing a violation
(ii) not necessary to examine

Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant
66856/14*
02/10/2014

Aleksey Albertovich KARELSKIY
1969
Moscow
Russian

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000

Appeal decision Moscow City Court 02/04/2014
(i) Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). (ii) Art. 6 § 1 – the courts based their findings exclusively on the evidence submitted by the police officers and dismissed the applicant’s statements and his evidence;
Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the courts refused to call prosecution witnesses, namely the police officers who testified that they had seen the applicant among the protesters and the police officers who had arrested him. Not claimed
Dmirtiy Albertovich KARELSKIY
1967
Moscow
Russian

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000

Appeal decision Moscow City Court 18/04/2014

(i) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful deprivation of liberty: arrest and transfer to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of the administrative offence (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 486‐92, 7 February 2017);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). (ii) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful detention for more than four hours;
Art. 6 § 1 – the courts based their findings exclusively on the evidence submitted by the police officers and dismissed the applicant’s statements and his evidence;
Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant. Not claimed
Arseniy Vladimirovich MIKAELYAN
1971
Bolshiye Vyazemy
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000

Appeal decision Moscow City Court 18/04/2014

(i) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful deprivation of liberty: arrest and transfer to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of the administrative offence (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 486‐92, 7 February 2017);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). (ii) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful detention for more than four hours;
Art. 6 § 1 –the courts based their findings exclusively on the evidence submitted by the police officers and refused to call a defence witness;
Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant. Not claimed
Vasiliy Yuryevich ZHARKOY
1989
Moscow
Russian

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000

Appeal decision Moscow City Court 02/04/2014

(i) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful deprivation of liberty: arrest and transfer to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of the administrative offence (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 486‐92, 7 February 2017);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). (ii) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful detention for five hours. Art. 6 § 1 –the courts based their findings exclusively on the evidence submitted by the police officers and dismissed the applicant’s statements and his evidence. Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the courts refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant. Not claimed
Levon Tigranovich AMATUNI
1990
Moscow
Russian

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 5,000

Appeal decision Moscow City Court 12/05/2014

(i) Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). (ii) Art. 6 § 1 – the courts based their findings exclusively on the evidence submitted by the police officers and dismissed the applicant’s statements and his evidence;
Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant. EUR 101 (one hundred and one euros)
Pavel Garriyevich BARDIN
1975
Moscow
Russian

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000

Appeal decision Moscow City Court 28/04/2014

(i) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful deprivation of liberty: arrest and transfer to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of the administrative offence (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 486‐92, 7 February 2017);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). (ii) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful detention for three and a half hours while being escorted to the police station;
Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the appellate court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
Aleksey Valeryevich MAKSIMOV
1976
Domodedovo
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000

Appeal decision Moscow City Court 14/05/2014
(i) Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
Sergey Borisovich PARKHOMENKO
1964
Moscow
Russian

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000

Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 500
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 12/05/2014

Appeal decision Moscow City Court 12/05/2014
(i) Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). (ii) Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant and who had drawn up the administrative reports (proceedings concerning charges under Art. 19.3 of the CAO). EUR 215 (two hundred and fifteen euros)
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PETRENKO
1959
Moscow
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000

Appeal decision Moscow City Court 28/04/2014

(i) Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). (ii) Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the appellate court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
33606/15
19/06/2015

Maksim Vladimirovich ZAMARAYEV
1974
Moscow
Russian

Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000

Appeal decision 28/01/2015 Moscow City Court
(i) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful deprivation of liberty: arrest and transfer to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 486‐92, 7 February 2017);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016). (ii) Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful arrest and detention for five hours;
Art. 6 § 1 – the courts based their findings exclusively on the evidence submitted by the police officers and dismissed the applicant’s evidence;
Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the courts refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)