Communicated on 24 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 14390/11 Vladimir Sergeyevich VLASOV against Russia lodged on 10 February 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Sergeyevich Vlasov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In administrative-offence proceedings (that were finally discontinued in March 2010 on account of the expiry of the prosecution period) the applicant was accused of hooliganism consisting of using rude language in a public place, swinging his arms and hitting with his legs against a wall of a shopping mall. In a criminal case (that continued afterwards) he was convicted of hitting a police officer later on, after being arrested for the above hooliganism and being taken to a police station. The appeal decision of 18 August 2010 in the criminal case reads as follows:

“The trial court in this criminal case established that the officers had acted lawfully when arresting the drunken defendant. He had committed [an/the] administrative offence. Officer Ch. had acted lawfully and within the scope of his official duties when arresting the defendant and taking him to the police station.”

Article 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides that ongoing administrative-offence proceedings are to be discontinued where the prosecution period has expired. In Ruling no. 9-P of 16 June 2009 the Constitutional Court of Russia stated that discontinuation on that ground meant that the person has to be considered innocent of the relevant offence that is the State ha s refused to prosecute him or her and thus the State no longer casts doubt on his status as an innocent person and, moreover, acknowledges that it has no basis for refuting his innocence.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the findings made by the appeal court in the criminal case violated the presumption of innocence.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was there a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the finding relating to [an/the] administrative-offence charge as made by the appeal court in its decision of 18 August 2010 (see Lähteenmäki v. Estonia , no. 53172/10 , § 45, 21 June 2016; Stirmanov v. Russia , no. 31816/08 , § § 42-50, 29 January 2019; and O ’ Neill v. the United Kingdom ( dec. ), no. 14541/15, §§ 37-39, 8 January 2019)?