Communicated on 1 September 2020 Published on 21 September 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application s no s . 47942/17 and 58664/17 Viktor Viktorovich CHIRIKOV against Russia and Andrey Pavlovich NEKRASOV against Russia lodged on 29 June 2017 and 25 July 2017 respectively

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the applicants ’ conviction and fifteen days ’ of administrative arrest for installation of a wooden cross on the bust of F. Dzerzhinsky (the director of the first Soviet secret-police organisations ) in the town of Krasnodar; the conduct of the trial court hearings in the absence of the applicants ’ lawyers; and the conditions of the first applicant ’ s detention after his conviction.

The installation was made on 20 December 2016, the anniversary of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission which had been headed by F. Dzerzhinsky. According to the applicants, the cross on the sculpture represented the authors ’ vision of the modern mission of the security agency. It was attached to the sculpture by adhesive tape and did not cause any physical damage to the latter.

On 23 and 25 December 2016 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar conducted trial court hearings in the case of the second and the first applicants respectively. Those hearings were held in the absence of their lawyers. Both applicants were found guilty of minor hooliganism, an offence under Article 20.1 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences (CAO). One of the elements of that offence was the infliction of “damage to the property of others”. The applicants challenged their conviction before the Krasnodar Regional Court, which dismissed the first and the second applicants ’ challenges on 29 December 2016 and 25 January 2017 respectively.

According to the first applicant, he served his sentence in appalling conditions of an overcrowded cell with no access to outdoor exercise or natural light .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the material conditions of the first applicant ’ s detention in the period from 25 December 2016 to 8 January 2017 amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb on account of the conduct of the trial court hearings in the applicants ’ cases in the absence of their lawyers? ( see Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, §§ 48-102, 19 November 2015 and Bucha and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 46354/11 and 8 others, §§ 47-49, 11 February 2020).

3. Did the applicants ’ conviction constitute an interference with their right to freedom of expression, secured by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Was it “prescribed by law”? Specifically, could the domestic courts ’ interpretation of Article 20.1 of the CAO be regarded as “foreseeable” given that the applicants ’ actions did not result in a physical damage to the sculpture, although the existence of “damage to the property of others” was one of the elements of the offence for which the applicants were convicted?

(b) Did the alleged interference pursue one or more legitimate aims?

(c) Was it “necessary in a democratic society”? In particular, was there a “pressing social need” for the interference in question? Did the domestic courts base their relevant decisions on an acceptable assessment of relevant facts, apply the standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention and adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons? Was the requirement of proportionality satisfied in the present case?