I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SOZAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application.
Information
- Judgment date: 2020-10-13
- Communication date: 2016-09-29
- Application number(s): 67685/14;35199/15
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 6, 6-1, 6-3-d, 11, 11-1, 11-2, 14
- 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: 0.584153
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
Applications nos.
67685/14 and 35199/15Valeriy Valeryevich SOZAYEV and Others against Russiaand Pavel Vyacheslavovich SAMBUROV against Russia(see the Appendix) The applicants are five Russian nationals listed in the Appendix.
They are represented before the Court by Ms T. Glushkova and Mr K. Koroteyev, lawyers practising in Moscow.
A.
The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In recent years a number of Russian regions adopted regional laws banning “homosexual propaganda directed at minors”.
In 2012 the Novosibirsk Regional Legislative Assembly introduced a federal bill banning “propaganda for non-traditional sexual relationships directed at minors” to the State Duma (the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament).
The bill was supported by Ms Yelena Mizulina from the Fair Russia party; it became known as “the Mizulina bill” after her.
The bill was considered by many to be discriminatory.
On several occasions in December 2012 and January 2013 opponents of the bill gathered in front of the State Duma building in Moscow to protest against its adoption by kissing each other.
They were arrested and charged with minor disorderly acts under the Code of Administrative Offences of Russia.
In the evening of 6 June 2013 the mass media announced that the second and the third readings of the Mizulina bill were to take place on 11 June 2013 in the State Duma.
On 8 June 2013 Ms Yelena Kostyuchenko, a journalist, called on opponents of the bill to come to the State Duma building and take part in a peaceful protest against it on the day of the second and third readings.
Information about the protest was published on social media.
On 11 June 2013 at around noon about thirty opponents of the bill came to the entrance of the State Duma building facing Georgiyevskiy Lane in Moscow.
Journalists were present there, as well as a group of about 100 conservative Orthodox Christian activists who were supporting the bill.
Riot officers from the Moscow Police Department were also present in Georgiyevskiy Lane; they stood between the opponents of the bill and the Christian activists.
The opponents of the bill lined up against the wall of the State Duma building and kissed their partners.
Christian activists chanted “Moscow is not Sodom!”; the bill opponents tried to shout them down by chanting “Down with fascism”, “Moscow is not Iran” and “Fascism shall not pass”.
At some point Christian activists started throwing eggs and nettles at the opponents of the bill.
At around 12.15 p.m. the police officers surrounded the anti-bill protesters and pushed them into police buses.
About thirty of them were apprehended in this way and taken to police stations.
None of the Christian activists were apprehended in this way.
Details of each applicant are given in the Appendix.
B.
Relevant domestic law and practice 1.
The relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of 30 December 2001, as in force at the material time, read as follows: 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 public events 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 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 20,000 or by compulsory community service of up to 40 hours ...” Article 25.1 Individuals against whom administrative proceedings have been instituted “1.
Individuals against whom administrative proceedings have been instituted are entitled to study the case-file material, to make submissions, to adduce evidence, to lodge representations and challenges, and to have legal assistance ...” Article 27.2 Escorting of individuals “1.
The escort or 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 discovered 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 rights and obligations under this Code explained to him, and the 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 48 hours.
3.
Persons subject to administrative proceedings concerning offences punishable, among other administrative sanctions, by administrative arrest, may be subject to administrative detention for up to 48 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 the police station] ...” 2.
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 by 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.
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 in the courts’ jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, administrative-offence 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 their decisions in the courts (Article 30.1 § 1 of the CAO).
Such review proceedings should provide for equality of arms and adversarial proceedings ...” COMPLAINTS All the applicants’ complaints are set out in the Appendix.
All the applicants complain under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention about the allegedly unlawful and disproportionate measures taken against them as peaceful protesters.
Furthermore, they claim that the dispersal of the gathering which called for equality for LGBT people constituted discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation and political views, in violation of Article 14 of the Convention.
The applicants complain that their apprehension by the police officers during the gathering was arbitrary.
One applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention at the police station after being arrested at the gathering 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, lack of impartiality on the part of the domestic courts owing to the absence of any prosecuting authority; that role was allegedly performed by the judges.
Four applicants complain under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that the courts refused to call prosecution witnesses, namely the police officers who had arrested them at the gathering.
COMMON QUESTIONS 1.
As regards each applicant, has there been an interference with his or her freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
2.
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, in respect of each applicant?
In particular, given the spontaneous character of the assembly and that it was impossible to give notice within the time-limit prescribed by law, was the interference proportionate in the circumstances of the present case (see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no.
25691/04, §§ 35-37, ECHR 2007‐III, and Eva Molnar v. Hungary, no.
10346/05, §§ 36-38, 7 January 2009)?
3.
Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of freedom of assembly contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention?
4.
Was each applicant’s arrest on 11 June 2013 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 gathering on 11 June 2013?
(b) Did it pursue any aim enumerated in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
5.
As regards the applicants’ trials, did they have fair hearings by independent and impartial tribunals in the administrative proceedings against them, 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 SECTIONCASE OF SOZAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 67685/14 and 35199/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sozayev 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. 67685/14 and 35199/15) 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 five Russian nationals (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated in the Appendix;
the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 22 September 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. On 11 June 2013 the applicants participated in a public assembly in front of the State Duma in Moscow in response to the legislative ban on the ‘promotion of non-traditional sexual relations among minors’. They were arrested and convicted of an administrative offence. THE FACTS
2. The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. The applicants in application no. 67685/14 were represented by Ms T. S. Glushkova and the applicant in application no. 35199/15 was represented by Mr K. N. Koroteyev, lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre. 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 6 June 2013 the mass media announced that the second and third readings of the bill banning the ‘promotion of non-traditional sexual relations among minors’ were to take place on 11 June 2013 in the State Duma. 6. On 11 June 2013 at around noon a group of opponents of the bill, including the applicants, came to the entrance of the State Duma building facing Georgiyevskiy Lane in Moscow. Journalists were present there, as well as a group of conservative Orthodox Christian activists who were supporting the bill. Riot officers from the Moscow Police Department stood between the opponents of the bill and the Christian activists. Christian activists chanted “Moscow is not Sodom!” The bill opponents chanted “Moscow is not Iran” and “Fascism shall not pass”. 7. At around 12.15 p.m. the police officers surrounded the anti-bill protesters and pushed them into police buses. According to the applicants, none of the activists supporting the bill were apprehended in this way. According to the Government, during the assembly the police also apprehended several supporters of the bill. 8. The applicants were transferred to various police stations in Moscow where the relevant administrative records were drawn up. The administrative offence records were based on the reports and explanations of the police officers who had arrested the applicants. On the same day, once the administrative records were finalised the applicants were released. 9. On various dates the domestic courts convicted the applicants under Article 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO) and sentenced them to administrative fines (see the appended table). 10. Relying on the administrative records and reports and explanations of the police officers, the domestic courts found the applicants liable for violating the established procedure for the conduct of a public assembly on account of their participation in the unauthorised gathering. In particular, the courts considered unlawful that some of the applicants shouted slogans and/or failed to verify whether the gathering was legitimate. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
11. Article 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides that violation by a participant in a public event of the established procedure for conducting a public event is punishable by a fine of 10,000 to 20,000 Russian roubles or up to forty hours of community work. 12. 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). 13. The domestic legal provisions governing administrative transfer (escorting) and detention are also set out in the case of Butkevich v. Russia (no. 5865/07, §§ 33-36, 13 February 2018). 14. According to Article 31.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences, if a decision imposing an administrative punishment is not enforced within 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
15. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 16. The applicants complained of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of a peaceful public assembly, namely their arrest followed by their conviction for an administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. Some applicants also invoked Article 10 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.”
17. The Court considers that in the present case the applicants’ intentions and conduct were covered by the notion of peaceful assembly. It 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. 18. The Government submitted that the gathering in the present case had not been a spontaneous one because the bill was introduced in March 2012. According to them, the applicants could organise a demonstration to express their disagreement with the bill without violating the procedure for a public event. They pointed out that the applicants in the present case had been convicted under 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences 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. 19. It follows that the applicants were arrested, transferred to the police station and charged with administrative offences for the sole reason that the gathering as such had not been authorised. 20. 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 proportionality of interference with that freedom (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‐XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009). 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. 24. 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. 25. As regards the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, the Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They submitted, in particular, that the applicants could have used the procedures under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 1070 of the Civil Code. In the absence of any domestic case-law examples provided by the Government demonstrating effectiveness of these remedies and noting its previous findings in similar cases (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 95-101, 10 April 2018), the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as unsubstantiated. 26. The remaining complaints raising issues under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table) are neither manifestly ill‐founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. 27. 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 Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016); and Lashmankin and Others (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 486‐92, 7 February 2017). 28. As regards Article 5 § 1, the finding of a violation relates to the arbitrary character of the applicants’ arrests on 11 June 2013. Having reached this conclusion, in the circumstances of this case the Court does not consider it necessary to examine Mr Samburov’s (application no. 35199/15) allegation that his detention on that day exceeded the statutory limit of three hours (see the appended table). 29. 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 all the applicants except Mr Sozayev (application no. 67685/14) also complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 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). 30. The applicants complained that the dispersal of their gathering which called for equality for LGBT people amounted to discrimination on grounds of their sexual orientation and political views. They relied on Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 11. Article 14 reads as follows:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
31. The Government submitted that the dispersal of the gathering was not due to the sexual orientation of its participants but due to their failure to comply with the official notification procedure. They further submitted that the supporters of the bill had also been arrested on the same day in front of the State Duma. 32. The applicants reiterated their complaint arguing that other participants of the same assembly who came to support the bill had not been arrested and sanctioned. They highlighted that the administrative offence records in their cases quoted their slogans in support of the rights of LGBT people and that the courts’ decisions referred to the applicants’ chanting of ‘relevant slogans’ as a part of the behaviour for which they were persecuted (see paragraphs 6 and 10 above). 33. The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention on account of the fact that the applicants had been arrested and charged with administrative offences for the sole reason that they had not duly notified the authorities of their gathering (see paragraphs 16-23 above). Having regard to this conclusion and in the light of the material submitted to it by the parties, the Court does not consider that the complaint under Article 14 calls for a separate examination (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 100, ECHR 2006‐XI). 34. 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.”
35. The applicants requested that the amount of non‐pecuniary damages be determined by the Court. 36. As regards pecuniary damage, some of the applicants claimed the amounts of the administrative fines paid by them (see the appended table). Mr Samburov (application no. 35199/15) did not submit a pecuniary damage claim because he did not pay the fine. He requested the Court to find that any attempt to enforce the domestic decision ordering him to pay the fine would violate Article 11 of the Convention. 37. The Government contested the claims as unsubstantiated and unfounded. 38. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and 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. 39. As regards Mr Samburov (application no. 35199/15) who submitted that he had not paid the fine the Court notes that a decision ordering an administrative punishment is enforceable within two years from the time when the decision became final (see paragraph 14 above). This period would normally have expired in 2016 in respect of the applicant concerned. In the absence of any information as to enforcement of the relevant domestic decision and, in particular, stay or suspension of its enforcement, the Court assumes that the decision will not be enforced. 40. The applicants also claimed EUR 11,750 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court. 41. The Government contested the claims on the grounds that there was no proof that the costs and expenses had actually been incurred. 42. 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. The Court notes that the applicants submitted no documentary proof, such as legal-services contracts with their representatives, payment receipts or invoices, to show that they had a legally enforceable obligation to pay for the lawyers’ services or that they had in fact paid for them. Regard being had to these considerations and its case-law, the Court rejects the applicants’ claim for costs and expenses (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 235, 26 April 2016). 43. 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:
(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;
(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 13 October 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Helen KellerDeputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
IT
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
67685/14
09/10/2014
Valeriy Valeryevich SOZAYEV
1979
St Petersburg
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 08/04/2014
(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. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
Ivan Fedorovich BABITSKIY
1979
Moscow
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 30/07/2014
(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, cited above, §§ 486‐92);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin, cited above). (ii) Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant. Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
Svetlana Yuryevna MISHINA
1986
Moscow
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 28/05/2014
(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, cited above, §§ 486‐92);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin, cited above). (ii) Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant;
Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
Yevgeniya Dmitriyevna SAMOSHKINA
1991
Moscow
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 28/07/2014
(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, cited above, §§ 486‐92);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin, cited above). (ii) Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant;
Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
35199/15
17/06/2015
Pavel Vyacheslavovich SAMBUROV
1986
Moscow
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 18/12/2014
(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, cited above, §§ 486‐92);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin, cited above). (ii) Art. 5 § 1 – the applicant’s detention in excess of three hours was unlawful;
Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant;
Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. n/a
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
67685/14
09/10/2014
Valeriy Valeryevich SOZAYEV
1979
St Petersburg
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 08/04/2014
(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. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
Ivan Fedorovich BABITSKIY
1979
Moscow
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 30/07/2014
(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, cited above, §§ 486‐92);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin, cited above). (ii) Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant. Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
Svetlana Yuryevna MISHINA
1986
Moscow
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 28/05/2014
(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, cited above, §§ 486‐92);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin, cited above). (ii) Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant;
Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
Yevgeniya Dmitriyevna SAMOSHKINA
1991
Moscow
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 28/07/2014
(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, cited above, §§ 486‐92);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin, cited above). (ii) Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant;
Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. EUR 202 (two hundred and two euros)
35199/15
17/06/2015
Pavel Vyacheslavovich SAMBUROV
1986
Moscow
Russian
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Administrative fine RUB 10,000
Appeal decision Moscow City Court 18/12/2014
(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, cited above, §§ 486‐92);
Art. 6 § 1 – lack of impartiality of tribunal: absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (see Karelin, cited above). (ii) Art. 5 § 1 – the applicant’s detention in excess of three hours was unlawful;
Art. 6 § 3 (d) – the first-instance court refused to call the police officers who had arrested the applicant;
Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 11 – the dispersal of the gathering constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. n/a