Communicated on 4 October 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 24517/18 Valentin Gennadyevich MURZAYEV against Russia lodged on 8 May 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

A Mr B. notified the local authority of his intention to hold a public assembly on 7 October 2017 in the town of Perm. The authority disagreed. However, the assembly was held, a Mr K. being in charge of running it. The applicant made a short speech during the assembly. On 8 October 2017 he was arrested. On 10 October 2017 he was se ntenced to a fine under Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) punishing public events ’ organisers who violated requirements of the Public Events Act (PEA). The applicant was considered to be the above assembly ’ s organiser in that he had made a post on his VKontakte account providing information about the planned assembly. Thereby, in the court ’ s view, he had acted as the assembly ’ s organiser and thus was guilty of the non-compliance with the prior notification requirement.

Also on 7 October 2017 the applicant took part together with other 150 people in a gathering ( митинг ) in front of a police station, which, allegedly, was a spontaneous reaction and a protest against the arrests of some participants of the above rally. Later on he was sentenced to a fine under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was there a violation of Article 7 of the Convention as regards the applicant ’ s conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (see Žaja v. Croatia , no. 37462/09, §§ 89-92, 4 October 2016) ? In particular, was it a foreseeable interpretation of Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO read together with the PEA that, having classified the applicant as the assembly ’ s “organiser” because of his VKontakte post, he would be held liable for the non ‑ compliance with the prior notification requirement incumbent on public events ’ organisers rather than participants?

2. Was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the administrative escorting of the applicant and his administrative arrest until the delivery of the trial judgment on 10 October 2017?

3. Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the lack of a prosecuting party in the above CAO cases against the applicant?

4. Was the applicant convicted under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, in substance, on account of his expression? If yes, were there an “ interference” under and a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant convicted, in substance, of the pre-event campaigning prior to the authority ’ s approval of the event ’ s venue and timing?

5. Was there a violation of Article 11 of the Convention as regards the two public events on 7 October 2017?