Communicated on 5 June 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 2064/10 Irina Borisovna FEDOTOVA against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The applications concern the authorities ’ refusal to approve public events planned by the applicants because their aims were contrary to the domestic law .

Ms Fedotova planned to hold a picket in Moscow to draw the public ’ s attention to the problem of haemorrhoid in Russia. The local authorities found the picket ’ s aims dubious because there was no problem with haemorrhoid in Russia.

Mr Konstantinov planned to hold a march in Moscow in support of legalising medical marijuana. The local authorities found the aims of the march to be contrary to the legal provisions prohibiting propaganda of drugs.

Mr Neznanov and Mr Zhilkin planned to hold a public meeting in Tambov to draw the attention of the media and the public to the problem of corruption. The local authorities held that the analysis of the information available on Internet had revealed that the organisers of the meeting pursued “other aims”. The applicants were then arrested and convicted of an administrative offence of organising ( Mr Zhilkin ) and participating in ( Mr Neznanov ) an unauthorised public event and fined.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. In each application, did the local authorities decisions refusing to approve the public events planned by the applicants, as well as Mr Neznanov ’ s and Mr Zhilkin ’ s arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against them, violate their right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, were the refusals to approve the public events in question on the ground of improper aims lawful? What legitimate aim did they pursue, and were they proportionate to that legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society?

2. Did Ms Fedotova (application no. 2064/10) have an effective remedy in respect of her complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Was Mr Neznanov (application no. 70450/17) deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his escorting to the police station and/or his administrative arrest on 26 March 2017 carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law? The Government are requested to submit the escorting and/or arresting records.

4. Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court in the administrative-offence proceedings against Mr Neznanov and Mr Zhilkin (applications nos. 70450/17 and 79288/17) 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) ?

\* MERGEFORMAT APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Nationality

Represented by

2064/10

27/11/2009

Irina Borisovna FEDOTOVA

10/11/1978

The Rostov Region

Mr D. BARTENEV

25465/16

27/04/2016

Sergey Ivanovich KONSTANTINOV

12/10/1979

Moscow

70450/17

07/09/2017

Aleksandr Nikolayevich NEZN ANOV

25/04/1982

Tambov

Mr K. TEREKHOV

79288/17

09/11/2017

Vladimir Vladimirovich ZHILKIN

21/12/1974

Tambov

Mr K. TEREKHOV