Communicated on 25 November 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 47409/18 Gregory HILL against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants were subjected to an administrative arrest and/or detention. The details pertaining to each application are summed up in the appendix below.

The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant in this case is Mr Gregory Hill who was born on 10 May 1999 and lives in Moscow. He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.

On 12 June 2017 at 5.10 p.m. the police arrested the applicant on the charge of violation of the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering. He was held in a police van for about four hours, then taken to a police station and released at 12.30 a.m. on 13 June 2017.

On 16 November 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine in the amount of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The court heard the case in the absence of a prosecuting party. It based its findings on the administrative case-file prepared by the police. The applicant maintained his innocence. He denied that he had taken part in the gathering. The court heard the applicant ’ s brother and refused to find him a credible witness.

On 30 March 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 10 April 2017 on appeal.

The applicant in this case is Mr George Hill who was born on 28 May 1997 and lives in Moscow. He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.

On 12 June 2017 at 5.10 p.m. the police arrested the applicant on the charge of violation of the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering. He was held in a police van for about four hours, then taken to a police station and released at 12.30 a.m. on 13 June 2017.

On 15 November 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine in the amount of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The court heard the case in the absence of a prosecuting party. It based its findings on the administrative case-file prepared by the police. The applicant maintained his innocence. He denied that he had taken part in the gathering. The court heard the applicant ’ s brother and refused to find him a credible witness.

On 30 March 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 10 April 2017 on appeal.

The applicant in this case is Mr Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Agafonov who was born on 4 November 1986 and lives in Odintsovo , Moscow Region. He is represented by Mr I. Zhdanov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

On 12 June 2017 at 4.00 p.m. the police arrested the applicant on the charge of violation of the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering. The applicant was released at 9 p.m.

On 18 October 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine in the amount of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The court heard the case in the absence of a prosecuting party. It based its findings on the administrative case-file prepared by the police. The applicant maintained his innocence. He denied that he had taken part in the gathering.

On 6 April 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 10 April 2017 on appeal.

The applicant in this case is Mr Vladimir Mikhaylovich Matveyev who was born on 21 April 1971 and lives in Petrazavodsk , Kareliya Republic. He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non ‑ governmental organisation based in Moscow.

On 12 June 2017 at 5.22 p.m. the police arrested the applicant on the charge of violation of the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering. He was held in a police van for over seven and a half hours, then taken to a police station and released at 3.50 a.m. on 13 June 2017.

On 13 February 2018 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine in the amount of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The court heard the case in the absence of a prosecuting party. It based its findings on the administrative case-file prepared by the police. The applicant maintained his innocence. He denied that he had taken part in the gathering.

On 30 May 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 10 April 2017 on appeal.

The applicant in this case is Ms Albina Marselevna Fakhraziyeva who was born on 16 July 1990 and lives in Kazan.

On 18 March 2018 the police arrested the applicant at a polling station where she was an observer on behalf of one of the candidates on the charge of disrupting the activities of the election committee. She was released at 4.56 p.m.

On 20 March 2018 the justice of the peace of judicial circuit no. 9 of the Sovetskiy District of Kazan found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered her to pay a fine in the amount of RUB 2,000. The court heard the case in the absence of a prosecuting party.

On 14 June 2018 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan upheld the judgment of 20 March 2018 on appeal.

The applicant in this case is Mr Timur Omarovich Mokhov who was born on 5 February 1996 and lives in Yakutsk. He is represented by Mr I. Zhdanov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

On 5 May 2018 at 4 p.m. the police arrested the applicant on the charge of participation in an unauthorised public gathering. He was released at approximately 7.30 p.m.

On 8 May 2018 the applicant was summoned to the police station where he was arrested. The police prepared the administrative offence record and at 7 p.m. took the applicant to the courthouse. It appears that the court hearing was adjourned. The police took the applicant back to the police station where he was held overnight.

On 9 May 2018 the Yakutsk Town Court of the Republic of Sakha ( Yakutiya ) considered the applicant ’ s case. The court found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of RUB 10,000. The court heard the case in the absence of a prosecuting party.

On 28 June 2019 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha ( Yakutiya ) upheld the judgment of 9 May 2018 on appeal. The applicant did not attend the hearing. He received a copy of the judgment on 2 August 2018.

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 in applications nos. 47409/18 and 47411/18 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 Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no. 76204/11 , §§ 89-98, 4 December 2014) ?

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. 47409/18 and 47411/18, 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

nationality

Represented by

Communicated complaints

47409/18

30/09/2018

Gregory HILL

10/05/1999

Moscow, British national

MEMORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE

(1) The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were not “lawful” or “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.

(2) The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the courts which dealt with his case were not impartial.

(3) The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that he was unable to examine police officers responsible for his arrest and detention.

47411/18

30/09/2018

George HILL

28/05/1997

Moscow, British national

MEMORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE

(1) The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were not “lawful” or “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.

(2) The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the courts which dealt with his case were not impartial.

(3) The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that he was unable to examine police officers responsible for his arrest and detention.

48614/18

05/10/2018

Vyacheslav Alekseyevich AGAFONOV

04/11/1986

Odintsovo , Russian national

Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV

(1) The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were not “lawful” or “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.

(2) The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the courts which dealt with his case were not impartial.

57310/18

05/11/2018

Vladimir MATVEYEV

21/04/1971

Petrozavodsk, Russian national

MEMORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE

(1) The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were not “lawful” or “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.

(2) The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the courts which dealt with his case were not impartial.

4400/19

13/12/2018

Albina Marselevna FAKHRAZIEVA

16/07/1990

Kazan, Russian national

(1) The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that her arrest and detention were not “lawful” or “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.

(2) The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the courts which dealt with her case were not impartial.

6770/19

21/01/2019

Timur Omarovich MOKHOV

05/02/1996

Yakutsk, Russian national

Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV

(1) The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were not “lawful” or “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.

(2) The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the courts which dealt with his case were not impartial.