Communicated on 24 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 55410/13 Pavel Nikolayevich NAGIBIN against Russia lodged on 23 July 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In July 2012 the Rostov regional police department issued three Orders relating to a forthcoming international training session for law enforcement officers relating to a possible terrorist threat. As part of that training participating officers had to patrol a designated area within Rostov and identify potential terrorists (apparently, played by their colleagues); they were to stop suspects, to check their belongings and take them to a police station (an “assessment unit”). Around 6 or 7 p.m. on 22 August 2012 the applicant happened to go through that area that was not delimited or restricted in any visible manner. He refused to present his bag and attempted to go away. He was apprehended and taken in custody on suspicion of resisting a lawful order from a police officer (Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, “CAO”). He was released at 3 p.m. on 23 August 2012. A peace justice then convicted him under Article 19.3 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of 700 Russian roubles (17 euros at the time). The police had refused to submit the above Orders because they were classified as secret (for “internal use only”). District Court Judge N. then upheld the sentence, considering that the police officers had acted lawfully on the basis of those Orders, and that the applicant had shown unlawful resistance to the police.

The applicant challenged the Orders in separate proceedings. The case was assigned to Judge N. The applicant was afforded fifteen minutes to read the Orders that the police had provided to the court. However, he was not allowed to amend his judicial-review application. Judge N. dismissed the applicant’s challenge against her based on the ground that she had already affirmed the legality of the Orders in the CAO case. By a judgment of 22 May 2013 Judge N. dismissed the applicant’s case on the merits as well as for an ancillary procedural reason, namely because the judicial review had only been sought in May 2013, that is more than three months after the person concerned (the applicant) had first learnt about the violation of his rights by an administrative act (the Orders).

On 1 August 2013 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month period under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, taking into account the judicial review in respect of the Orders that served as the legal basis for the police’s actions in respect of him on 22 August 2012 and, indirectly and by implication, as one element of the legal basis for the ensuing proceedings against the applicant under Article 19.3 of the CAO?

If yes:

2.1. As regards the police actions in respect of the applicant prior to his taking to the police station on 22 August 2012 in the context of a police training session (then leading to the applicant’s prosecution for disobeying the police), was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, Article 8 of the Convention (compare Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom , no. 4158/05, §§ 63 and 76-87 , ECHR 2010 (extracts) ) or Article 2 §§ 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? In particular, did the situation fall within any sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

2.2. As regards the applicant’s ensuing detention until 3 p.m. on 23 August 2012, did it fall within any sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If not, was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

3.1. Was the civil limb of Article 6 applicable to the judicial review of the Orders that had served as the legal basis for the police actions against the applicant (compare Bursa Barosu Başkanlığı and Others v. Turkey , no. 25680/05 , §§ 125-28 , 19 June 2018 )?

3.2. Was the applicant’s right of access to a court violated on account of the lack of access to those Orders; the courts’ refusal to examine any amendment to the initial judicial-review application, and the application of the three-month time-limit (see Bellet v. France , 4 December 1995, § 36 , Series A no. 333 ‑ B )? Alternatively, did the same violate the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?