Lexploria

Communicated on 7 June 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 39696/12 Andrey Aleksandrovich SEMENOV against Russia and 16 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants are Russian nationals. They were arrested during public assemblies and convicted of administrative offences for shouting slogans or waving banners that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public events in which they claimed to participate.

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 arrests and the administrative offence proceedings against them violated their rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention.

Individual complaints

1. Mr Mironov (application no. 79906/17) complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the allegedly inhuman conditions of detention at the police station.

2. The applicants in applications nos. 79906/17, 2940/18, 5270/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 complain that their escorting to the police stations and/or administrative arrests were unlawful and unjustified in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

3. The applicants in applications nos. 16683/17, 79906/17, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 4841/18, 5270/18, 5340/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 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. 79906/17, 5270/18 and 6493/18 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. Mr Shendakov (application no. 6493/18) complains Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about the domestic courts ’ refusal to examine defence witnesses, in particular the eye-witnesses of his arrest.

6. The applicants in applications nos. 39696/12, 77503/12, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 5340/18 and 11453/18 complain under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention about the local authorities ’ decisions refusing to approve the locations and/or time of the public events planned by them.

7. Mr Nagibin and Mr Ryazantsev (application no. 77503/12) complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention about the refusal to approve the locations and/or time of the public events planned by them.

8. The applicants in applications nos. 39696/12 and 29316/13 complain under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 that the refusal to approve the location of their public event and/or their arrests and convictions for administrative offences amounted to discrimination on account of their political opinion.

9. Mr Mironov (application no. 79906/17) 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 QUESTION

Did the applicants ’ arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against them for shouting slogans and/or waving banners that did not correspond to the declared aims of the authorised public events in which they claimed to participate violate their right to freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 10 and 11 of the Convention?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. Were the conditions of Mr Mironov ’ s detention in the police station from 9 to 10 May 2017 (application no. 79906/17) compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Were the applicants in applications nos. 79906/17, 2940/18, 5270/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 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 relevant escorting and/or arrest 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. 16683/17, 79906/17, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 4841/18, 5270/18, 5340/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 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. 79906/17 (in both sets of proceedings), 5270/18 and 6493/18 able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?

5. Was Mr Shendakov (application no. 6493/18) given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his version of events, in particular by calling defence witnesses, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?

6. Did the local authorities ’ decisions refusing to approve the locations and/or time chosen by the applicants in applications nos. 39696/12, 77503/12, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 5340/18 and 11453/18 for the public events planned by them contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the Convention?

7. Did the applicants in application no. 77503/12 have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention about the refusal to approve the locations and/or time of the public events planned by them, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular:

– Did they have at their disposal an effective remedy which would allow an enforceable judicial decision to be obtained on the authorities ’ refusal to approve the location and/or time of a public event before its planned date?

– Did they have an effective post-hoc remedy? In particular, did the scope of judicial review under Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure include an assessment of “necessity in a democratic society” and “proportionality” of the local authorities ’ proposal to change the location and/or time of a public event?

If no effective remedy was available to the applicants in application no. 77503/12, have they complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Artyomov v. Russia , no. 14146/02, §§ 108-18, 27 May 2010)?

8. Were the applicants in applications nos. 39696/12 and 29316/13 subjected to discrimination on account of their political opinion, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11?

9. Was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention in application no. 79906/17? 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

Measures applied within the notification procedure

Administrative charges

Measures applied within the administrative ‑ offence procedure

Final domestic decisions

The applicants ’ actions as established by the domestic courts

39696/12*

14/05/2012

Andrey Aleksandrovich SEMENOV

02/03/1979

The Moscow Region

Mr D. LESNYAK

Strategy-31 public event,

Triumfalnaya Square, Moscow

31/08/2011

Public event in support of the freedom of assembly,

Pyatnitskaya Street, Moscow,

20/07/2012

Refusal to approve the location of the public event

Approved

20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“The CAO”)

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

19.3 of the CAO

administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)

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

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

Administrative-offence procedure: 30/11/2011

The Tverskoy District Court of Moscow

03/10/2012

the Zamoskvoretskiy Ditrict Court of Moscow

07/09/2012

the Zamoskvoretskiy Ditrict Court of Moscow

The applicant participated in an unauthorised public event

The applicant held a political banner “Russia without Putin” which did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event;

The applicant resisted lawful arrest for holding the above-mentioned banner

77503/12*

18/10/2012

Pavel

Nikolayevich NAGIBIN

06/06/1971

Rostov-on-Don

Vladislav

Yuryevich RYAZANTSEV

20/10/1990

Rostov-on-Don

A public event in support of fair elections,

the centre of Rostov-on-Don,

04/02/2012

A march for fair elections,

the centre of Rostov-on-Don,

24, 25 or 26/02/2012

A march for fair elections,

the centre of Rostov-on-Don,

26/02/2012

Refusal to approve the location and time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (the LDPR) at the same location and time

Refusal to approve the location of the public event

Refusal to approve the location and time of the public event

20.2 § 1 of the CAO

the first applicant ’ s escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)

Notification proceedings: 19/04/2012,

The Rostov Regional Court;

Administrative offence proceedings: 25/07/2012,

the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don

28/05/2012

The Rostov Regional Court

24/05/2012

The Rostov Regional Court

The first applicant organised an unauthorised public event. The domestic courts rejected his argument that he had participated the LDPR ’ s public event, finding that, by making a speech in support of fair elections and by distributing leaflets, he had organised a separate event

29316/13*

02/04/2013

Galina

Fedorovna TIKHENKO

03/03/1947

The Volgograd Region

The Independence Day commemoration,

Mamayev Kurgan, Volgograd,

12/06/2012

Approved

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station and conviction to an oral reprimand

05/10/2012

The Volzhskiy Town Court of the Volgograd Region

The applicant distributed and waved banners that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event

16683/17*

25/02/2017

Dmitriy

Sergeyevich YARTSEV

21/02/1988

Moscow

Ms T. GLUSHKOVA

A march for labour rights, the centre of Moscow,

01/05/2016

Approved

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

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

26/08/2016

The Moscow City Court

The applicant chanted slogans (“Stop cops ’ abuse”, “Down with the police state”) that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event

79906/17*

07/11/2017

Aleksandr Sergeyevich MIRONOV

24/05/1979

Moscow

Mr O. BEZNISKO

“Immortal regiment” march,

The centre of Moscow,

09/05/2017

Approved

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

19.3 of the CAO

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

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

08/10/2017

The Moscow City Court

16/05/2017

The Moscow City Court

The applicant distributed leaflets portraying the President and the Prime Minister with a caption “It is not their victory” that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event

The applicant did not obey the police ’ s order to stop distributing leaflets

80338/17

10/11/2017

Vyacheslav Borisovich RYBAKOV

25/01/1966

Chebokasary

Mr A. GLUKHOV

Anti-corruption protest,

Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,

26/03/2017

Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

19.3 of the CAO

Conviction to thirty days ’ community work

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

15/08/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

11/05/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

The applicant participated in the Young Guard ’ s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event;

The applicant did not obey the police ’ s order to stop the above unlawful activities

80340/17

10/11/2017

Yuriy

Borisovich SIDOROV

25/07/1987

The Tula Region

Mr A. GLUKHOV

Anti-corruption protest,

Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,

26/03/2017

Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

19.3 of the CAO

Conviction to thirty-two days ’ community work

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

31/08/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

30/05/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

The applicant participated in the Young Guard ’ s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event;

The applicant did not obey the police ’ s order to stop the above unlawful activities

80358/17

10/11/2017

Dmitriy

Martin ROBSON

04/11/1997

Cheboksary

Mr A.GLUKHOV

Anti-corruption protest,

Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,

26/03/2017

Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time

19.3 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)

11/05/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

The applicant participated in the Young Guard ’ s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event; he did not obey the police ’ s order to stop the above unlawful activities

80374/17

10/11/2017

Roman Mikhaylovich ROMANOV

25/06/1998

Cheboksary

Mr A. GLUKHOV

Anti-corruption protest,

Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,

26/03/2017

Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time

19.3 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)

12/05/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

The applicant participated in the Young Guard ’ s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event; he did not obey the police ’ s order to stop the above unlawful activities

80378/17

10/11/2017

Konstantin Aleksandrovich ISHUTOV

15/06/1983

Cheboksary

Mr A. GLUKHOV

Anti-corruption protest,

Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,

26/03/2017

Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

19.3 of the CAO

Conviction to a fine (RUB 20,000)

Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)

21/09/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

30/05/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

The applicant participated in the Young Guard ’ s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event;

The applicant did not obey the police ’ s order to stop the above unlawful activities

80382/17

10/11/2017

Semen Aleksandrovich KOCHKIN

21/09/1993

Cheboksary

Mr A. GLUKHOV

Anti-corruption protest,

Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,

26/03/2017

Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time

20.2 § 1 of the CAO

19.3 of the CAO

Conviction to thirty days ’ community work

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

Notification proceedings:

19/06/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

31/08/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

11/05/2017

The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic

The applicant organised an unauthorised public event simultaneously with the approved Young Guard ’ s public event; he organised a group of people who waved anti-government banners and shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the Young Guard ’ s event

The applicant participated in the Young Guard ’ s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event; he did not obey the police ’ s order to stop the above unlawful activities

2940/18

25/12/2017

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich YELFIMOV

10/10/1995

Vladivostok

Mr K. TEREKHOV

Anti-corruption protest,

Privokzalnaya

Square,

Vladivostok,

26/03/2017

Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event to promote the National Guard Day was scheduled at the same location and time

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

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

28/06/2017

The Primorskiy Regional Court

The applicant waved an anti-government banner and chanted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the aims of the approved National Guard Day event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event

4841/18*

17/01/2018

Andrey Alekseyevich YAROTSKOY

20/08/1991

Vladivostok

Mr K. TEREKHOV

“Day of the City” march

Svetlanskaya Street, Vladivotok

01/07/2017

Approved

20.2 § 8 of the CAO

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

10/08/2017

The Primorskiy Regional Court

The applicant held a banner depicting Mr Navalnyy and Mr Putin with a caption “Hold on Aleksey. Men is stronger than rats” that did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved public event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event

5270/18

17/01/2018

Dmitriy Yevgenyevich RODIN

19/06/1979

The Moscow Region

Mr K. TEREKHOV, Mr D. SHEDOV

A meeting for maintaining the trolleybus network,

Suvorovskaya Square, Moscow,

29/01/2017

Approved

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

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

24/07/2017

The Moscow City Court

The applicant waved a banner “Bring the mayor ’ s office to liability”

that did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved event

5340/18*

08/01/2018

Vladimir Romanovich YAROSLAVSKIY

20/10/1993

Vladivostok

Mr K. TEREKHOV

Anti-corruption protest,

Privokzalnaya Square, Vladivostok, 26/03/2017

Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event to promote the National Guard Day was scheduled at the same location and time

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

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

12/07/2017

The Primorskiy Regional Court

The applicant waved an anti-government banner and chanted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the aims of the approved National Guard Day event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event

6493/18

28/01/2017

Mikhail Anatolyevich SHENDAKOV

31/01/1965

The Moscow Region

Mr D. SHEDOV

A meeting for maintaining the trolleybus network,

Suvorovskaya Square, Moscow,

29/01/2017

Approved

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

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

28/07/2017

The Moscow City Court

The applicant waved a banner “Putin is the traitor of the Motherland and the enemy of the Russian people”

that did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved event

11453/18*

15/02/2018

Roman

Yuryevich GURYANOV

28/01/1999

the Primorskiy Region

Ms P. SIDELNIKOVA

Anti-corruption protest,

Privokzalnaya Square, Vladivostok, 26/03/2017

Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event to promote the National Guard Day was scheduled at the same location and time

20.2 § 5 of the CAO

Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 5,000)

09/08/2017

The Primorskiy Regional Court, received on 19/08/2017

The applicant waved an anti-government banner that did not correspond to the aims of the approved National Guard Day event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event

Menu

SEMENOV v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications

SEMENOV v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications

LEXI