LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
ARUTYUNYAN v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
Doc ref: 19880/18;20504/18;22029/18;23385/18;24567/18;27965/18;48916/18 • ECHR ID: 001-211549
Document date: July 8, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
ARUTYUNYAN v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
Doc ref: 19880/18;20504/18;22029/18;23385/18;24567/18;27965/18;48916/18 • ECHR ID: 001-211549
Document date: July 8, 2021
Cited paragraphs only
Published on 26 July 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 19880/18 Gayane Levonovna ARUTYUNYAN against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) c ommunicated on 8 July 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants distributed leaflets in support of Mr A. Navalnyy ’ s intention to run for the President of Russia. Each of them did so separately from the others, by positioning him- or herself at different stations of the Moscow metro and in various locations in Tyumen. All applicants but Mr Gerasimov (who was able to complete his demonstration) were arrested, escorted to police stations for drawing up administrative-offence records and then released. The domestic courts considered that, together with other volunteers, the applicants had taken part in one and common act of group picketing in Moscow or in Tyumen which had not been notified to a competent local authority as required by the Public Events Act. In all cases concerning the events in Moscow the courts noted in addition that the applicants had acted in breach of Presidential Decree no. 202 of 9 May 2017 introducing temporary restrictions on holding public events during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup. Each applicant was convicted under Article 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences for a failure to notify a public event and sentenced to an administrative fine.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do the circumstances of each case (where relevant, the termination of the applicants ’ actions, escorting to a police station, detention there and prosecution under the Code of Administrative Offences) disclose an “interference” under Article10 or Article 11 of the Convention? Was the interference “prescribed by law”, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society” (see, in so far as relevant, Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 222-25, 26 April 2016 ) ? In particular:
(a ) Was it foreseeable that each applicant ’ s actions would be classified as a common act of picketing within the meaning of the Public Events Act, given that the applicants distributed leaflets at a considerable distance from other persons and, where relevant, on different dates? What was the target object being picketed?
(b) In so far as the domestic courts in cases listed in Appendix I referred to the Presidential Decree no. 202 of 9 May 2017, did the domestic legal provisions requiring a prior notification for solo demonstrations during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup meet the “quality of law” requirements? What was the justification for the restrictions on holding public events unrelated to the sport competitions , in particular, in case of solo demonstrations?
(c) In each case, what legitimate aim was pursued by prosecuting on account of the conduct by one person situated at a considerable distance from other persons (compare with Novikova and Others , cited above, §§ 144-47 )? Was the interference proportionate to the aim pursued? Did the domestic courts adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for the “interference” with freedom of expression/assembly, and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts?
2 . In cases nos. 19880/18, 22029/18, 27965/18, 48916/18 , has there been a violation of the applicants ’ rights under Article 5 of the Convention on account of the applicants ’ escorting to the police stations and arrests (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no. 76204/11, §§ 89-98, 4 December 2014)?
3. As regards each applicants ’ trial in cases nos. 19880/18 and 20504/18 (first-instance proceedings), as well as nos. 27965/18 and 24567/18 (proceedings at two levels of jurisdiction), were the courts which dealt with the applicants ’ cases impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 38-85, 20 September 2016)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
Year of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
Solo demonstration
(date, place)
Final judgment
(date, court)
19880/18
19/04/2018
Gayane Levonovna ARUTYUNYAN
1996Moscow
Russian
Represented by:
Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV
08/07/2017
Andropova Av.
Moscow
02/11/2017
Moscow City Court
22029/18
23/04/2018
Yanis Aleksandrovich OBLAKOV
1996Moscow
Russian
Represented by:
Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV
08/07/2017
Moscow
08/11/2017
Moscow City Court
23385/18
04/05/2018
Arseniy Mikhaylovich POPOV
1995Tarasovka
Russian
Represented by:
Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV
08/07/2017
Moscow
10/11/2017
Moscow City Court
27965/18
04/06/2018
Oleg Andreyevich KARELOV
1984Moscow
Russian
Represented by:
Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV
9/07/2017
Moscow
04/12/2017
Moscow City Court
48916/18
05/10/2018
Mikhail Vasilyevich SHCHERBAKOV
1994Moscow
Russian
Represented by:
Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV
08/07/2017
Moscow
20/04/2018
Moscow City Court
20504/18
12/04/2018
Mikhail Mikhaylovich GERASIMOV
1986Tyumen
Russian
Represented by:
Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV
08/07/2017
Tyumen
30/10/2017
Tyumen Regional Court
24567/18
15/05/2018
Oleg Borisovich KORZHANOV
1987Bolshiye Akiyary , Tyumen Region
Russian
Represented by:
Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV
09/07/2017
Tyumen
15/11/2017
Tyumen Regional Court
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
