Communicated on 26 September 2019

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 59770/18 and 1038/19 Roman Igorevich RAYMOV against Russia and Nikolay Borisovich RYABENKO against Russia lodged on 4 December 2018 and 14 December 2018 respectively

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

Application no. 59770/18 : The applicant Raymov participated in a non ‑ notified meeting ( митинг ) that was immediately and spontaneously transformed into a demonstration ( демонстрация ). In three separate sets of proceedings he was then sentenced to fines for offences under Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) in relation to violating the Public Events Act (PEA) in respect of his participation in the meeting and the demonstration, being treated as separate public events; under Article 19.3 of the CAO in relation to his participation in the meeting. This last conviction was later on set aside.

Application no. 1038/19 : The applicant Ryabenko participated in a non ‑ notified meeting that was then immediately and spontaneously transformed into a march. In two separate sets of proceedings he was then sentenced to a fine and community work for offences under Article 20.2 of the CAO in relation to violating the PEA in respect of his participation in each public event. The applicant was also convicted under Article 19.3 of the CAO as part of one of the above proceedings. However, this part of the conviction was later on quashed on appeal.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the alleged identical nature of the imputed unlawful conduct (participation in a non-notified public event), was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention on account of:

1.1. the convictions – in separate sets of proceedings – in relation to each applicant ’ s participation in a public event on the same date? Did the convictions arise from the facts that overlapped being “substantially the same”?

1.2.1. the fact of being “tried” under Article 19.3 of the CAO following a final conviction for an offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO? In this respect:

1.2.2. Has each applicant lost his victim status under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention because of the quashing of the conviction under Article 19.3 of the CAO (see Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy , nos. 18640/10 and 4 others , § 220, 4 March 2014) ? In particular:

- Have the domestic courts acknowledged a violation of the ne bis in idem principle?

- Has each applicant been afforded adequate redress? In particular, was any compensation received by the applicants on account of (non-)pecuniary damage sustained as a result of being “tried” under Article 19.3 of the CAO? Are there any remaining adverse consequences (that have not been remedied) of being “tried” under that Article, such as any pre-trial deprivation of liberty specifically related to Article 19.3 of the CAO, the sentence of detention already served or the fine already paid and not reimbursed?

2. Was there a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention in respect of each applicant on account of the prosecutions under the CAO?

3. Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of each applicant on account of the lack of a prosecution party in their CAO cases?

APPENDIX

Application no. 59770/18

Roman Igorevich RAYMOV is a Russian national who was born in 1997 , lives in Ibresi and is represented by A.V. Glukhov

Application no. 1038/19

Nikolay Borisovich RYABENKO is a Russian national who was born in 1999, lives in Cheboksary and is represented by A.V. Glukhov