Published on 12 July 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 19835/18 Andrey Vladimirovich RUDOY against Russia lodged on 9 April 2018 c ommunicated on 23 June 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant published a message on his social networking account stating that he would hold a solo demonstration against an increase in public transport fares and inviting others to come to support him and sign a petition. That message drew attention of policemen who monitored social networks. The police gave the applicant a warning against breaching the legal provisions on the conduct of public events. The applicant was subsequently arrested and fined for a failure to notify his public event in which about thirty people had taken part.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the monitoring of social networks by the police, the making of screenshots of the message published by the applicant on his social networking account, the storage of the screenshots and of other personal data, if any, recovered as a result of the monitoring and its disclosure and use in the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant amount to an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1, of the Convention (see Catt v. the United Kingdom , no. 43514/15, § 93, 24 January 2019, and Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden [GC], no. 35252/08, § 244, 25 May 2021 )? If so, was that interference compatible with the requirements of Article 8 § 2? In particular:

( i ) Was the interference prescribed by law? Does the legal framework governing the monitoring of social networks by the police and the procedures for the storing, accessing, examining, communicating, using and destroying the data recovered as a result of such monitoring meet the “quality of law” requirements by providing for adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse (see Gardel v. France , no. 16428/05, § 62, ECHR 2009, and Catt, cited above , §§ 94-107)?

(ii) Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim?

(iii) Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts adduce “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the interference?

2. Did the warning against breaching the legal provisions on the conduct of public events violate the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression and/or assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference “prescribed by law”? Did the applicable domestic law meet the “quality of law” requirements? Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? Was it “necessary in a democratic society”? The parties are requested to provide a copy of the warning.

3. Did the applicant ’ s administrative arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against him for a failure to notify his public event violate his right to freedom of expression and/or assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (compare Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016) ?