Communicated on 25 November 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 76201/17 Nikolay Yuryevich KAVKAZSKIY against Russia and 6 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 Nikolay Yuriyevich Kavkazskiy who was born on 16 October 1986 and lives in Moscow. He is represented by Ms T. Glushkova , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

On 17 May 2015 the applicant took part in a flash mob. The police arrested the participants and took them to a police station. According to the police record, the applicant was taken to the police station for “a preventive talk” at 5:30 p.m. He was released at about 7:45 p.m. The police did not draw up an arrest record.

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action against the arresting police officer claiming that his arrest and detention had been unlawful.

On 15 March 2016 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant ’ s claims. The court considered that the police had acted in order to put an end to a disturbance of peace by the participants in the flash mob and in full compliance with the law.

On 10 October 2016 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 15 March 2016 on appeal.

On 14 December 2016 and 6 March 2017 the City Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation respectively dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeals.

The applicant in this case is Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich Mironov who was born on 13 May 1991 and lives in Moscow. He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.

On 26 March 2017 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 an hour, then taken to a police station and released some 3 hours later.

On 10 April 2017 the Tverskoy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine in the amount of 15,000 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 the charges claiming that he had been merely observing the gathering. The court questioned M., the applicant ’ s friend, who confirmed the applicant ’ s version of the events.

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

The applicant in this case is Mikhail Aleksandrovich Smirnov who was born on 25 July 1996 and lives in St Petersburg. He is represented by Mr A. Peterdruk , a lawyer practicing in St Petersburg.

On 12 June 2017 the police arrested the applicant for (1) having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering and (2) having failed to obey a policeman ’ s lawful order.

On 13 June 2017 the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to (1) 24 hours ’ community service and (2) 14 days ’ arrest. The applicant maintained his innocence. He denied the charges claiming that he had been merely observing the gathering.

On 19 June 2017 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

The applicant in this case is Sergey Mikhaylovich Yakovlev who was born on 5 March 1986 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 3 p.m. the police arrested the applicant for (1) having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering and (2) having failed to obey a policeman ’ s lawful order. He was held in a police van for over three hours, then taken to a police station and released on 13 June 2017 at 3 a.m.

On 21 August 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay fines in the amount of RUB 10,000 and RUB 1,000 respectively. The court heard the case in the absence of a prosecuting party. The applicant maintained his innocence. He claimed that he had happened to be out for a walk at the place of the gathering.

On 2 February 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

The applicant in this case is Maksim Igorevich Chumakov who was born on 9 November 1981 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 3:10 p.m. the police arrested the applicant for having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering. He was held in a police van for over an hour, then taken to a police station and released at 8:30 p.m.

On 19 September 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay fines in the amount of RUB 10,000. The applicant maintained his innocence. He claimed that he had not taken part in the gathering.

On 6 February 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

The applicant in this case is Arsenijs Listovs who was born on 15 December 1990 and lives in Riga, Latvia. He is represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.

On 12 June 2017 at 4:42 p.m. the police arrested the applicant for having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering. He was held in a police van for an hour, then taken to a police station and released approximately after 11:20 p.m.

On 25 September 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of RUB 10,000. The applicant maintained his innocence. He claimed that he had not taken part in the gathering.

On 6 March 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

The applicant in this case is Timur Marsovich Almayev who was born on 8 May 1994 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 3:10 p.m. the police arrested the applicant for having violated the procedure prescribed for the conduct of a public gathering. He was held in a police van for an hour, then taken to a police station and released after 8:00 p.m.

On 13 September 2017 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of RUB 15,000. The applicant maintained his innocence. He claimed that he had not taken part in the gathering.

On 22 March 2018 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

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 in applications nos. 2397/18, 3075/18, 37542/18, 37545/18, 43664/18 and 43669/18 complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the courts which dealt with their cases were not impartial.

The applicants in applications nos. 2397/18, 37545/18, 43664/18 and 43669/18 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 QUESTION

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) ?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. As regards applications nos. 2397/18, 3075/18, 37542/18, 37545/18, 43664/18 and 43669/18, 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) ?

2. As regards applications nos. 2397/18, 37545/18, 43664/18 and 43669/18, 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

76201/17

06/09/2017

Nikolay Yuryevich KAVKAZSKIY

16/10/1986

Moscow, Russian national

Tatyana Sergeyevna GLUSHKOVA

(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”.

2397/18

29/12/2017

Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich MIRONOV

13/05/1991

Moscow, 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.

(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.

3075/18

08/12/2017

Mikhail Aleksandrovich SMIRNOV

25/07/1996

St Petersburg, Russian national

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich PEREDRUK

(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.

37542/18

02/08/2018

Sergey Mikhaylovich YAKOVLEV

05/03/1986

Moscow, 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.

37545/18

02/08/2018

Maksim Igorevich CHUMAKOV

09/11/1981

Moscow, 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.

(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.

43664/18

03/09/2018

Arsenijs LISTOVS

15/12/1990

Riga, Latvian 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.

43669/18

03/09/2018

Timur Marsovich ALMAYEV

08/05/1994

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.