Communicated on 7 June 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 25557/17 Tatyana Fedorovna SVINTSOVA against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE S

The applicants are Russian nationals. They were arrested during unauthorised public assemblies and co nvicted of administrative offenc es, although each of them denied participation in the public assembly in question.

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

COMPLAINTS

Joint complaints

The applicants in all cases complain that their escorting to the police stations, administrative arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against them violated their rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention.

Individual complaints

1. Mr Yermolayev (application no. 54083/17) complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the allegedly inhuman conditions of detention at the police station and that he did not have an effective remedy for that complaint.

2. The applicants in applications nos. 53179/17, 54083/17, 83941/17, 3724/18 and 9848/18 complain that their escorting to the police stations and/or administrative arrest were unlawful and unjustified in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

3. The applicants in applications nos. 25557/17, 54083/17, 83271/17, 83319/17, 83941/17, 2702/18, 3724/18, 6378/18, 9691/18 and 9848/18 complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court in the administrative-offence proceedings.

4. The applicants in applications nos. 25557/17, 83271/17, 83319/17, 83941/17, 2702/18, 3724/18, 6378/18, 9691/18 and 9848/18 complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were unable to cross ‑ examine witnesses against them, in particular the police officers who had arrested them and the police officers who had drawn up various procedural documents describing their offences.

5. The applicants in applications nos. 25557/17 and 2702/18 complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about the domestic courts ’ refusal to examine defence witnesses, in particular the eye-witnesses of their arrests.

6. Mr Yermolayev (application no. 54083/17) complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention about the absence of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.

7. Mr Melnikov (application no. 3724/18) complains under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that he was tried twice for the same offence because he was convicted under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences for substantially the same facts.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Given that the applicants denied their participation in the public events in question, did their escorting to the police stations, administrative arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against them constitute an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the Convention (see Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no. 21613/07, §§ 72 and 73, 3 October 2013; Müdür Duman v. Turkey , no. 15450/03, § 30, 6 October 2015; and Agit Demir v. Turquie , no. 36475/10, §§ 60-72, 27 February 2018)?

2. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. Were the conditions of Mr Yermolayev ’ s detention in the police station from 26 to 28 March 2016 (application no. 54083/17) compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Did Mr Yermolayev have an effective remedy for his complaint in respect of poor conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3?

2. Were the applicants in applications nos. 53179/17, 54083/17, 83941/17, 3724/18 and 9848/18 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were their escorting to the police station and/or their administrative arrests carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law? The Government are requested to submit escorting and/or arresting records in respect of each applicant.

3. Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court in the administrative-offence proceedings in applications nos. 25557/17, 54083/17, 83271/17, 83319/17, 83941/17, 2702/18, 3724/18, 6378/18, 9691/18 and 9848/18 entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20 September 2016) ?

4. Were the applicants in applications nos. 25557/17, 83271/17, 83319/17, 83941/17, 2702/18, 3724/18, 6378/18, 9691/18 and 9848/18 able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?

5. Were the applicants in applications nos. 25557/17 and 2702/18 given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their version of events, in particular by calling defence witnesses, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?

6. Did the absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention undermine Mr Yermolayev ’ s right of appeal to have his conviction or sentence reviewed (application no. 54083/17), as required by Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (compare Shvydka v. Ukraine , no. 17888/12, §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others , §§ 176-191, 10 April 2018, not yet final)?

7. Was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention in application no. 3724/18? In particular:

- Had the offences under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences for which the applicant was prosecuted arisen from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same?

- Was there a duplication of proceedings? In particular, when there was a “final” decision in each set of proceedings?

- Alternatively (see A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, § 126, ECHR 2016), did the proceedings have a sufficiently close connection - both in substance and in time - with each other and constitute complementary legal responses to socially offensive conduct (ibid., §§ 121 ‑ 25 and 130-32)? If yes, did such accumulated legal responses represent an excessive burden for the applicant and entail, in substance or in effect, double jeopardy to his detriment (ibid.)? Were the possible consequences of organising the legal treatment of the conduct concerned in such a manner proportionate and foreseeable for the applicant?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Aim of the public event

Location

Date

Administrative charges

Measures applied

Final domestic decision

The applicants ’ actions as established by the domestic courts on the basis of police reports

The applicant ’ s version of events

25557/17*

06/03/2017

Tatyana Fedorovna SVINTSOVA

11/05/1973

the Moscow

Region

Mr

O. BEZNISKO

Meeting in support of Nadezhda

Savchenko,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Triumfalnaya Square, Moscow

08/03/2016

20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“The CAO”)

Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (10,000 Russia roubles (RUB))

08/09/2016,

the Moscow City Court

The applicant shouted slogans

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that she had not taken part in the protest event; she had stood apart holding a drawing by her son and talking to journalists

53179/17*

13/07/2017

Vladimir Yuryevich DOROKHOV

26/04/1985

the Tula Region

Mr

K. TEREKHOV

Anti-government protest,

Lenin Square, Tula,

26/03/2017

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)

27/04/2017, the Tula Regional Court

The applicant was in a group of persons walking in the streets and carrying banners and balloons

The applicant claimed before the first-instance court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had just walked by on his way home from the office to the nearby bus station

54083/17

17/07/2017

Ilya Aleksandrovich YERMOLAYEV

25/06/1984

Khabarovsk

Mr

K. TEREKHOV

Anti-government protest,

Tverskaya Street,

Moscow, 26/03/2017

19.3 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to seven days ’ administrative detention

31/03/2017, the Moscow City Court

The applicant, together with more than 300 persons, hindered the passage of pedestrians and did not comply with the police ’ s order to stop breaching public order

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had just walked by on his way to a nearby shop

83271/17*

03/12/2017

Mariya Aleksandrovna VOYEVODINA

24/11/1980

St Petersburg

Ms

S. RATNIKOVA

Anti-government protest,

Nevskiy Avenue,

St Petersburg, 26/03/2017

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)

29/06/2017, the St Petersburg City Court

The applicant shouted political slogans

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that she had not taken part in the protest event; she had just walked by on her way to the nearby train station where she intended to buy train tickets

83319/17*

03/12/2017

Oleg

Otariyevich KOIAVA

17/02/1978

St Petersburg

Ms

S. RATNIKOVA

Anti-government protest,

Nevskiy Avenue,

St Petersburg, 26/03/2017

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)

06/07/2017, the St Petersburg City Court

The applicant shouted political slogans

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had just walked by on his way to the nearby train station where he intended to buy train tickets

83941/17

08/12/2017

Nikita

Igorevich

ROLIN

13/09/1998

Moscow

Ms

M. AGALTSOVA

Anti-government protest,

Tverskaya Street,

Moscow, 26/03/2017

19.3 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)

08/06/2017, the Moscow City Court

The applicant shouted anti-government slogans and did not comply with the police order to stop breaching public order

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had come to Tverskaya Street to meet his friend

2702/18*

16/12/2017

Amir

Ramilevich VYALSHIN

17/08/1997

the Tatarstan

Republic

Ms

I. KHOLODTSOVA

Anti-government protest,

Tverskaya Street,

Moscow, 26/03/2017

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 20,000)

12/07/2017, the Moscow City Court

The applicant waved ambiguous anti-government banners

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he has been arrested immediately after leaving a restaurant in Tverskaya Street

3724/18

29/12/2017

Sergey

Yuryevich MELNIKOV

16/09/1964

St Petersburg

Ms

K. KORCHILOVA

Anti-corruption protest,

Marsovo Pole

Square,

St Petersburg,

12/06/2017

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

19.3 of the CAO

conviction to a fine (RUB 15,000)

administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 600)

29/06/2017, the St Petersburg City Court

29/06/2017, the St Petersburg City Court

The applicant was in an immediate vicinity – less than ten metres from – persons shouting political slogans and waving yellow toy ducks

The applicant did not comply with the police order to stop participating in the unauthorised public event

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had come to Marsovo Pole Square to take part in official public celebrations of Russia ’ s day; he had been arrested while filming the festivities with his smartphone

6378/18*

16/12/2017

Stanislav Olegovich BELYANSKIY

08/02/1965

Moscow

Anti-government protest,

Tverskaya Street,

Moscow, 12/06/2017

19.3 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to ten days ’ administrative detention

19/06/2017, the Moscow City Court

The applicant waved banners, distributed leaflets and shouted anti-government slogans and did not comply with the police order to stop breaching public order

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had come to Tverskaya Street to take part in official public celebrations of Russia ’ s day; he had been arrested while distributing leaflets describing rules of conduct during public events and afterwards in case of arrest

9691/18*

09/02/2018

Konstantin Vladimirovich FILIPPOV

20/05/1986

Moscow

Anti-government protest,

Tverskaya Street,

Moscow, 02/04/2017

20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 20,000)

10/08/2017, the Moscow City Court

The applicant shouted slogans and walked on the road hindering traffic

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that although he had been initially part of the protesters ’ group, he had then left them to go to a shop; he had been arrested immediately after going out of the shop

9848/18*

12/02/2018

Filipp Vladimirovich KHODANOV

10/01/1995

Bryansk

Ms I.KHOLODTSOVA

Anti-government protest,

Tverskaya Street,

Moscow, 26/03/2017

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)

14/08/2017, the Moscow City Court

The applicant waved ambiguous anti-government banners

The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had come to Tverskaya Street to meet his friends