Published on 11 October 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 2264/17 Aleksandr Igorevich VALOV against Russia lodged on 26 December 2016 communicated on 22 September 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns several issues. The applicant was a blogger and the editor-in-chief of a news internet website “blogsochi.ru [1] ”.

In 2016 the applicant accompanied a camera crew of HBO TV Channel filming the constructions which had been built for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. The police arrested the applicant for, and he was later found guilty of, an administrative offense of “having organised a mass simultaneous presence or movement of citizens in public places which resulted in a breach of public order in a frontier zone”. The applicant was sentenced to five days of an administrative arrest.

In 2017 the applicant lost a defamation action brought against him by a Russian State Duma deputy, Mr N., for articles about the latter published by the applicant on his internet website.

In 2018 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having extorted money from Mr N. for removal of the articles about him from the applicant’s internet website. The applicant’s flat was searched, and all photo and computer equipment were seized. He was placed in pre-trial detention.

While studying the case-file material for his trial the applicant learnt that in 2016 his telephone and email communications had been intercepted based on a court decision. The court had justified the need of the above operational-search activities in respect of the applicant on the grounds that he had belonged to a group of opposition-minded people, whose activities had aimed to organise acts of civil disobedience with the use of extremist methods, and had organised and had participated in protest events.

In 2019 the applicant was convicted of extortion and sentenced to six years in prison.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. As regards the applicant’s arrest and detention on 3-8 June 2018 in relation to the administrative offence, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence under Article 20.2.2 § 3 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences, as required by Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 314, 22 December 2020, and Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 460-62, 21 January 2021)?

2. As regards the applicant’s arrest and detention on 3-8 June 2018 in relation to the administrative offence, did the interference with the applicant’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention pursue a legitimate aim, was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by that Article?

3. Given the Adlerskiy District Court of Sochi’s refusal to postpone its hearing of 4 June 2018 in respect of the applicant’s administrative offence until appearance of the latter’s advocate and the court’s order for a State appointed advocate to represent the applicant despite his will, was the applicant’s right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing ensured, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?

In view of the applicant’s allegations that his appeal complaint of 14 June 2018, received by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 23 June 2018, had not been examined and that he had not been informed about that decision, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of the criminal charges brought against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Did the absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention undermine the applicant’s right of appeal to have his conviction or sentence reviewed, as required by Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (compare Shvydka v. Ukraine , no. 17888/12, §§ 48 ‑ 55, 30 October 2014, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 181-91, 10 April 2018)?

5. Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression as regards the defamation proceedings brought against him by Mr N., a member of the State Duma? Did the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 of the Convention pursue a legitimate aim, was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by that Article (see Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 164-65, 27 June 2017)? Considering the amount awarded to the claimant, did the domestic courts take into consideration the applicant’s financial situation and contemplate whether the award would be proportionate in the particular circumstances of the case (see Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia , nos. 46232/10 et 74770/10, § 70, 8 September 2020)? Overall, did the domestic courts give due consideration to the principles and criteria as laid down by the Court’s case-law for balancing the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression (see, among others, Tolmachev v. Russia , no. 42182/11, § 56, 2 June 2020)?

6. As regards the search of the applicant’s flat in the context of criminal proceedings, did the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, home and correspondence pursue a legitimate aim, was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention?

7. In view of the interception of the applicant’s telephone and email communications and the grounds for its judicial authorisation in the context of criminal proceedings, was there an interference with the applicant’s rights under Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention? If so, was the interference “prescribed by law”? Did it pursue a legitimate aim? Was it “necessary in a democratic society”?

8. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above complaints under Articles 8, 10 and 11, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

9. Did the authorities provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention pending criminal proceedings against him as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (in particular, see the detention orders of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi of 21 January 2018 (upheld by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 25 January 2018); 16 March 2018 (upheld on 27 March 2018) and 18 April 2018 (upheld on 3 May 2018); 19 September 2018 and 23 November 2018 of the Lazarevskiy District Court of Sochi (upheld on 11 October 2018 and 13 December 2018 respectively))?

10. Was there an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 of the Convention because the national courts cited, as one of the grounds for his pre-trial detention, the risk that he could have continued publishing articles on his internet website? If so, was the interference “prescribed by law”? Did it pursue one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? Was it “necessary in a democratic society”?

11. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge(s) against him (final decision rendered by the Lazarevskiy District Court of Sochi on 26 December 2018, as upheld by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 30 August 2019), in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the tribunals in the applicant’s trial independent and impartial? The Government are requested to comment on the applicant’s allegation that the trial and appellate courts’ judges were predisposed against him

(a) in view of his earlier publications about the courts of the Sochi town;

(b) in view of the remarks about the applicant’s ethnic origin and its being mentioned in the judgment.

12. Given the Lazarevskiy District Court of Sochi’s order of 16 November 2018 for a State-appointed advocate to represent the applicant at the final stage of the trial against him, was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing and whether his legal representation was effective as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?

[1] Blocked by State authorities since 2018.