I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KAVKAZSKIY v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications.
Information
- Judgment date: 2022-01-13
- Communication date: 2019-11-25
- Application number(s): 76201/17;2397/18;3075/18;37542/18;37545/18;43664/18;43669/18
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1, 13, 35
- 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 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.635622
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicants were subjected to an administrative arrest and/or detention.
The details pertaining to each application are summed up in the appendix below.
The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant in this case is Nikolay Yuriyevich Kavkazskiy who was born on 16 October 1986 and lives in Moscow.
He is represented by Ms T. Glushkova, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
On 17 May 2015 the applicant took part in a flash mob.
The police arrested the participants and took them to a police station.
According to the police record, the applicant was taken to the police station for “a preventive talk” at 5:30 p.m.
He was released at about 7:45 p.m.
The police did not draw up an arrest record.
On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action against the arresting police officer claiming that his arrest and detention had been unlawful.
On 15 March 2016 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims.
The court considered that the police had acted in order to put an end to a disturbance of peace by the participants in the flash mob and in full compliance with the law.
On 10 October 2016 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 15 March 2016 on appeal.
On 14 December 2016 and 6 March 2017 the City Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation respectively dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeals.
The applicant in this case is Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich Mironov who was born on 13 May 1991 and lives in Moscow.
He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.
On 26 March 2017 the police arrested the applicant on the charge of violation of the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering.
He was held in a police van for over an hour, then taken to a police station and released some 3 hours later.
On 10 April 2017 the Tverskoy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine in the amount of 15,000 Russian roubles (RUB).
The court heard the case in the absence of a prosecuting party.
It based its findings on the administrative case-file prepared by the police.
The applicant maintained his innocence.
He denied the charges claiming that he had been merely observing the gathering.
The court questioned M., the applicant’s friend, who confirmed the applicant’s version of the events.
On 10 July 2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 10 April 2017 on appeal.
The applicant in this case is Mikhail Aleksandrovich Smirnov who was born on 25 July 1996 and lives in St Petersburg.
He is represented by Mr A. Peterdruk, a lawyer practicing in St Petersburg.
On 12 June 2017 the police arrested the applicant for (1) having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering and (2) having failed to obey a policeman’s lawful order.
On 13 June 2017 the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to (1) 24 hours’ community service and (2) 14 days’ arrest.
The applicant maintained his innocence.
He denied the charges claiming that he had been merely observing the gathering.
On 19 June 2017 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.
The applicant in this case is Sergey Mikhaylovich Yakovlev who was born on 5 March 1986 and lives in Moscow.
He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.
On 12 June 2017 at 3 p.m. the police arrested the applicant for (1) having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering and (2) having failed to obey a policeman’s lawful order.
He was held in a police van for over three hours, then taken to a police station and released on 13 June 2017 at 3 a.m. On 21 August 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay fines in the amount of RUB 10,000 and RUB 1,000 respectively.
The court heard the case in the absence of a prosecuting party.
The applicant maintained his innocence.
He claimed that he had happened to be out for a walk at the place of the gathering.
On 2 February 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.
The applicant in this case is Maksim Igorevich Chumakov who was born on 9 November 1981 and lives in Moscow.
He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.
On 12 June 2017 at 3:10 p.m. the police arrested the applicant for having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering.
He was held in a police van for over an hour, then taken to a police station and released at 8:30 p.m. On 19 September 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay fines in the amount of RUB 10,000.
The applicant maintained his innocence.
He claimed that he had not taken part in the gathering.
On 6 February 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.
The applicant in this case is Arsenijs Listovs who was born on 15 December 1990 and lives in Riga, Latvia.
He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.
On 12 June 2017 at 4:42 p.m. the police arrested the applicant for having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering.
He was held in a police van for an hour, then taken to a police station and released approximately after 11:20 p.m. On 25 September 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of RUB 10,000.
The applicant maintained his innocence.
He claimed that he had not taken part in the gathering.
On 6 March 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.
The applicant in this case is Timur Marsovich Almayev who was born on 8 May 1994 and lives in Moscow.
He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.
On 12 June 2017 at 3:10 p.m. the police arrested the applicant for having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering.
He was held in a police van for an hour, then taken to a police station and released after 8:00 p.m. On 13 September 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of RUB 15,000.
The applicant maintained his innocence.
He claimed that he had not taken part in the gathering.
On 22 March 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.
COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their arrest and detention were not “lawful” or “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.
The applicants in applications nos.
2397/18, 3075/18, 37542/18, 37545/18, 43664/18 and 43669/18 complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the courts which dealt with their cases were not impartial.
The applicants in applications nos.
2397/18, 37545/18, 43664/18 and 43669/18 complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were unable to examine police officers responsible for their arrest and detention.
COMMON QUESTION Were the applicants’ arrest and detention “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no.
76204/11, §§ 89-98, 4 December 2014)?
CASE SPECIFIC
Judgment
THIRD SECTIONCASE OF KAVKAZSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 76201/17 and 6 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 January 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kavkazskiy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President, Dmitry Dedov, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2021,
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). Some applicants 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 applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 1
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ...”
7. 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. 8. 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 Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present case, where the police arrested the applicants and detained them pending the preparation of the administrative offence file, while no evidence that it was impracticable to compile the offence record on the spot was provided. The Court finds that the escorting of the applicants to the police station and their ensuing detention did not comply with Russian law and were therefore not “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 10. In some applications the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016) and Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, § 168, 5 January 2016). 11. 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.”
12. 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. It therefore dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 13. The Court further 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 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 13 January 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
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 pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
76201/17
06/09/2017
Nikolay Yuryevich KAVKAZSKIY
1986
Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna
Moscow
17/05/2015, 17:30
17/05/2015, 19:45
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others,
§§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
3,000
2397/18
29/12/2017
Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich MIRONOV
1991
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
26/03/2017, 15:15
26/03/2017, 19:30
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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
3075/18
08/12/2017
Mikhail Aleksandrovich SMIRNOV
1996
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
12/06/2017, 15:30
13/06/2017, evening
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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
3,900
37542/18
02/08/2018
Sergey Mikhaylovich YAKOVLEV
1986
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 15:00
13/06/2017, 03:00
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
3,900
37545/18
02/08/2018
Maksim Igorevich CHUMAKOV
1981
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 15:15
12/06/2017, 20:30
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
43664/18
03/09/2018
Arsenijs LISTOVS
1990
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 16:42
12/06/2017, 23:20
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
43669/18
03/09/2018
Timur Marsovich ALMAYEV
1994
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 15:10
12/06/2017, 20:00
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016). Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KAVKAZSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 76201/17 and 6 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 January 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kavkazskiy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President, Dmitry Dedov, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2021,
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). Some applicants 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 applicants complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 1
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ...”
7. 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. 8. 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 Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present case, where the police arrested the applicants and detained them pending the preparation of the administrative offence file, while no evidence that it was impracticable to compile the offence record on the spot was provided. The Court finds that the escorting of the applicants to the police station and their ensuing detention did not comply with Russian law and were therefore not “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 10. In some applications the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016) and Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, § 168, 5 January 2016). 11. 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.”
12. 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. It therefore dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 13. The Court further 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 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 13 January 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
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 pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
76201/17
06/09/2017
Nikolay Yuryevich KAVKAZSKIY
1986
Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna
Moscow
17/05/2015, 17:30
17/05/2015, 19:45
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others,
§§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
3,000
2397/18
29/12/2017
Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich MIRONOV
1991
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
26/03/2017, 15:15
26/03/2017, 19:30
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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
3075/18
08/12/2017
Mikhail Aleksandrovich SMIRNOV
1996
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
12/06/2017, 15:30
13/06/2017, evening
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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
3,900
37542/18
02/08/2018
Sergey Mikhaylovich YAKOVLEV
1986
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 15:00
13/06/2017, 03:00
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
3,900
37545/18
02/08/2018
Maksim Igorevich CHUMAKOV
1981
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 15:15
12/06/2017, 20:30
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
43664/18
03/09/2018
Arsenijs LISTOVS
1990
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 16:42
12/06/2017, 23:20
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
43669/18
03/09/2018
Timur Marsovich ALMAYEV
1994
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 15:10
12/06/2017, 20:00
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016). Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
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 pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
76201/17
06/09/2017
Nikolay Yuryevich KAVKAZSKIY
1986
Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna
Moscow
17/05/2015, 17:30
17/05/2015, 19:45
Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others,
§§ 121-22, 10 April 2018)
3,000
2397/18
29/12/2017
Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich MIRONOV
1991
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
26/03/2017, 15:15
26/03/2017, 19:30
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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
3075/18
08/12/2017
Mikhail Aleksandrovich SMIRNOV
1996
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
12/06/2017, 15:30
13/06/2017, evening
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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
3,900
37542/18
02/08/2018
Sergey Mikhaylovich YAKOVLEV
1986
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 15:00
13/06/2017, 03:00
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
3,900
37545/18
02/08/2018
Maksim Igorevich CHUMAKOV
1981
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 15:15
12/06/2017, 20:30
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
43664/18
03/09/2018
Arsenijs LISTOVS
1990
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 16:42
12/06/2017, 23:20
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016)
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
43669/18
03/09/2018
Timur Marsovich ALMAYEV
1994
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
Moscow
12/06/2017, 15:10
12/06/2017, 20:00
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purpose of drawing up an offence record: no written record of the administrative escorting was drawn up (Art. 27.2 § 3 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 – Domestic courts denied the applicant’s motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,
20 September 2016). Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses – Domestic court denied the applicant’s motion to examine the witness in his case, a police officer, on whose written statements his conviction was based. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision on appeal
3,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.