Communicated on 14 May 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 83310/17 Yelena Yuryevna ROMANOVA against Russia lodged on 30 November 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yelena Yuryevna Romanova (née Blinova ), is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Cheboksary.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 3 April 2017 the police charged the applicant with mass distribution of extremist materials, an offence under Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The charge rested on the fact that she had reposted, on her account in the VKontakte social network, a statement by the Russian MP Milonov about the conviction of a local activist Mr Semenov who had been sentenced to a fine for mentioning the extremist slogan “Orthodoxy or death” in the same social network (see application no. 47810/17). MP Milonov had been quoted as saying:

“I am ready to ask the Ministry of Justice for an explanation why this peaceful phrase continues to be present in the list of extremist slogans. But before I need to have another look at the court ’ s decision, to check if any changes have taken place in the last year. If they have and the court has pronounced the slogan to be legitimate, then the Ministry of Justice should fix its error. I emphasise once again that the slogan ‘ Orthodoxy or death ’ may not be considered extremist. It implies a spiritual death, only an imbecile would conclude that we want to kill anyone. I do not think so.”

As the quote included the words “Orthodoxy or death” which a Moscow court had pronounced to be extremist by a decision dated 21 December 2010, the applicant was held liable for dissemination of extremist material.

On 11, 12 and 13 April 2017 the charges were heard in the Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary. The court refused the applicant ’ s request to have the trial recorded on video on the ground that a video recording would be conducive to disseminating extremist materials. It also refused a further request for a linguistic assessment of MP Milonov ’ s statement, holding that the available evidence was already sufficient.

On 13 April 2017 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and fined her 1,000 Russian roubles. It held it established that the applicant had reposted a slogan that had been previously declared extremist.

On 1 June 2017 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic dismissed her appeal, rejecting her Convention arguments.

On 28 June 2017 the Cheboksary City Hall rejected her petition to organise a public assembly, referring to her final conviction of the administrative offence of an extremist nature.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that she was punished for reposting a statement by a Russian MP and that the courts did not heed the context of the statement.

The applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention that her right to organise public events was restricted on account of her conviction.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. The Government are requested to submit:

(a) a copy of the decision dated 21 December 2010 by which the phrase “Orthodoxy or death” was pronounced extremist;

(b) a copy of the decision refusing institution of criminal proceedings against MP Milonov for wearing a t-shirt with the same phrase.

2. Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the Russian courts apply the standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they take into account the context in which the publications were made and identify the legitimate aim of the interference? Was the decision foreseeable for the applicant, given that previously the same Russian MP had been acquitted of all charges for wearing a t-shirt with the same phrase? Did the courts consider the proportionality of the sanction and the issue whether a warning or another, less intrusive measure could have been sufficient to achieve the desired dissuasive effect?

3. Was there a violation of Article 11 of the Convention as a result of the applicant ’ s ineligibility to act as an organiser of public assemblies? Does the statutory ban preventing persons convicted of “extremist” administrative offences from organising public assemblies pursue any legitimate aim and is it proportionate in the circumstances of the present case?