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.
MIRONOVSKIY v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
Doc ref: 38503/18;38508/18;38553/18;56891/18 • ECHR ID: 001-201302
Document date: January 24, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 7
MIRONOVSKIY v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
Doc ref: 38503/18;38508/18;38553/18;56891/18 • ECHR ID: 001-201302
Document date: January 24, 2020
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 24 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 38503/18 Anatoliy Anatolyevich MIRONOVSKIY against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)
The applicants are Russian nationals. They were represented before the Court by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre based in Moscow.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants were arrested by the police on the charge of violation of the procedure prescribed for the conduct of the public gathering and taken to the police station for the preparation of the administrative record. In court the applicants denied the charges and claimed that they had not taken part in the gatherings. The courts heard their cases in the absence of a prosecuting party. The applicants were found guilty as charged and ordered to pay a monetary fine.
The details pertaining to each application appear in Appendix below.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their arrest and detention were not “lawful” or “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts which dealt with their cases were not impartial.
The applicants (applications nos. 38508/18 and 56891/18) complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were unable to examine police officers responsible for their arrest and detention.
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Were the applicants ’ arrest and detention “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 489-90, 7 February 2017 ) ?
2. 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) ?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION
As regards applications nos. 38508/18 and 56891/18, were the applicants able to examine witnesses (police officers) against them, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Date of the arrest;
Length of detention
Judicial proceedings
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
Moscow City Court
38503/18
06/08/2018
Anatoliy Anatolyevich MIRONOVSKIY
03/06/1990
Moscow
12 June 2017
From 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
11 September 2017
6 February 2018
38508/18
06/08/2018
Mikhail Igorevich STAVITSKIY
09/06/1987
Moscow
12 June 2017
From 3:15 p.m. to 8 p.m.
19 September 2017
6 February 2018
38553/18
06/08/2018
Yuriy Valentinovich KHOKHLOV
01/05/1973
Moscow
12 June 2017
From 2.40 p.m. to 6 p.m.
11 September 2017
8 February 2018
56891/18
28/18/2018
Timofey Yuryevich FEDOTOV
05/06/1991
Smolensk
12 June 2017
From 3.40 p.m. to 8 p.m.
27 March 2018
28 May 2018
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
