Communicated on 23 February 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 27294/14 Gennadiy Grigoryevich POLYAK against Russia and 8 other applications (see appended table )

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The applications concern, primarily, pre-trial measures such as administrative escorting ( административное доставление ) and/or administrative arrest ( административное задержание ) in respect of the applicants under Articles 27.1-27.3 of the federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO).

COMMON QUESTION

Was each applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

ADDITIONAL CASE-SPECIFIC ISSUES

See “Communicated issues” in the appended Table.

In particular:

As regards application no. 27294/14:

1.1 In view of the related arguments at the trial and in the appeal and review proceedings, has the applicant complied with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as regards the issue under Article 5 § 1 about the pre-trial deprivation of liberty? In this connection is it appropriate to take into account the review decisions dated 16 December 2013 and 14 March 2014 (compare with Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia , no. 42911/08, §§ 69-80, 21 February 2017; Annenkov and Others v. Russia , no. 31475/10 , §§ 107-10, 25 July 2017; and Smadikov v. Russia ( dec. ). no. 10810/15, § 49, 31 January 2017)?

1.2. Did his deprivation of liberty fall within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (e) or (c) of the Convention (compare with Kharin v. Russia , no. 37345/03 , §§ 30-47, 3 February 2011, and Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia , no. 47837/06 , §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; see also Ruling no. 25-P of 17 November 2016 by the Russian Constitutional Court)?

2. Did the applicant have a fair trial in compliance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)-(d) of the Convention (compare Frumkin v. Russia , no. 74568/12 , §§ 165-66, ECHR 2016 (extracts) )?

As regards application nos. 58518/14, 60398/15, 46442/17, 61668/17 and 61733/17:

1. Has each applicant complied with the exhaustion requirement under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as regards the issue under Article 5 § 1 about the pre-trial deprivation of liberty? Taking into account whether the imputed offence was or was not punishable by administrative detention ( административный арест ) , the outcome of each CAO case and – if appropriate –the applicant ’ s nationality (for application no. 60398/15), did each applicant have any prospect of success in:

(a) raising the related matters during a trial and/or in appeal or review proceedings under the CAO; and/or

(b) seeking judicial review under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and/or

(c) obtaining an adequate monetary compensation under:

- the special rules of Article 1070 § 1 and Article 1100 of the Civil Code; or

- the general rules of tort liability under Article 1070 § 2 in conjunction with Article 1069 of the Civil Code (compare Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 113-14 and 229, 10 January 2012; also compare with the jurisprudence of the Russian Constitutional Court: Ruling no. 9-P of 16 June 2009; Decision no. 1049-O of 2 July 2013; Ruling no. 8-P of 17 March 2017; Ruling no. 25-P of 17 November 2016 (section 3)); or

- Articles 1069 and 1100 read with Article 16.1 of the Civil Code; and/or

(d) seeking institution of criminal proceedings, for instance, under Articles 127, 286 or 301 of the Criminal Code (compare Leonid Petrov v. Russia , no. 52783/08, §§ 49-50, 11 October 2016; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia , no. 20364/05, § 66, 4 November 2010; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06 , §§ 34-45 and 47-51, 23 February 2016; and Smirnova v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 37267/04, 8 July 2014)?

The respondent Government are invited to submit examples of domestic judgments (preferably, issued by the Russian Supreme Court or Constitutional Court) concerning the matters mentioned above, inter alia , the prospects of success and adequacy of monetary awards during the relevant periods of time (that is between 2014 and 2017).

2. Was Article 13 of the Convention applicable in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 in respect of administrative escorting and/or administrative arrest (see Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia , no. 9390/05, §§ 114-15, 3 November 2011, and Iustin Robertino Micu v. Romania , no. 41040/11 , §§ 109-11, 13 January 2015)? If yes, h as there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention?

As regards application no. 72051/17:

Was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention? In particular:

- As to the sets of proceedings under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, when there was a “final” decision in one set of proceedings and did it entail duplication of proceedings and punishments?

- 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 co nstitute 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 her 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. and date of introduction

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

nationality

Represented by

Deprivation of liberty and

domestic decision details

Communicated issues

27294/14

28/03/2014

Gennadiy Grigoryevich POLYAK

22/07/1971

Michurinsk

Russian

Administrative escorting and arrest from 1 to 2 August 2013

judgment of 02/08/2013; appeal decision of 04/09/2013; 1 st review decision of 16/12/2013; 2 nd review decision of 14/03/2014

Article 5§1: unlawful administrative escorting and administrative arrest ;

Article 6§§1 and 3(c)-(d): unfairness resulting, inter alia , from restriction on the defence ’ s ability to contest adverse evidence by way of examining officers M. and B.; refusal to examine a security-camera recording

58518/14

05/08/2014

Andrey Valeryevich SEMOCHKIN

23/06/1982

Volgograd

Russian

Administrative arrest on 5-7 March 2014

judgment of 07/03/2014; appeal decision of 25/03/2014; 1st review decision of 20/08/2014 (discontinuation due to expiry of the prosecution period)

Article 5§1: unlawful administrative arrest ;

Article 13 (in substance) : lack of an effective remedy for the above issue;

Article 6§§1 and 3(c)-(d): no opportunity to retain counsel for the trial and to examine a police officer; the court ’ s refusal to assist in obtaining video evidence from a public enterprise

60398/15

16/11/2015

Radu

FOKSHA

06/08/1976

Hîncești

Moldavian

Administrative escorting (and arrest) on 24/06/2015

judgment of 24/06/2015; appeal decision of 14/07/2015;

1st review decision of 24/09/2015

Article 5§1: unlawful administrative escorting (and arrest)

Article 13 : lack of an effective remedy

46442/17

25/06/2017

Andrey Aleksandrovich MASHARO

04/04/1973

St Petersburg

Russian

Irina Leonidovna URADOVSKIKH

Administrative arrest from 11 p.m. on

24 August to 5.20 p.m. on 26 August 2016

Sentenced on 25/08/2016 to a fine by a police officer; judgment of 15/12/2016; appeal decision of 26/01/2017

Article 5§1: unlawful administrative arrest;

Article 5§2: no information about reasons for this arrest (cf. Malofeyeva v. Russia , no. 36673/04 , §§ 68-73, 30 May 2013)

Article 13: no effective remedy for the above issues

53795/17

17/07/2017

Artem Valeryevich PARFENOV

06/03/1994

Armavir

Russian

Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV

administrative escorting and arrest on

23-24 March 2017

judgment of 24/03/2017, appeal decision of 12/04/2017

Article 5§1: arbitrary and unlawful arrest and detention prior and during the trial;

Article 6§1: lack of a prosecuting party at hearings (requirement of objective impartiality);

Article 6§§1 and 3: lack of an opportunity to contact a lawyer (for pre-trial and trial proceedings) and its adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings;

Article 2 of Protocol No. 7: lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal vis -a- vis execution of the sentence of administrative detention

61668/17

11/08/2017

Eduard Viktorovich SHITIK

01/05/1961

Fedorovskoye

Russian

Administrative escorting (and arrest) on 29 April 2017

judgment of 12/05/2017; appeal decision of 13/06/2017

Article 5§1: unlawful administrative escorting and arrest;

Article 13 (in substance) : lack of an effective remedy for the above issue;

Article 6§1: lack of a prosecuting party at court hearings

61733/17

11/08/2017

Shakhnaz Davudovna SHITIK

13/07/1964

Fedorovskoye

Russian

Administrative escorting (and arrest) on 29 April 2017

judgment of 12/05/2017; appeal decision of 13/06/2017

Article 5§1: unlawful administrative escorting and arrest;

Article 13 (in substance) : lack of an effective remedy for the above issue;

Article 6§1: lack of a prosecuting party at court hearings

71399/17

27/09/2017

Nikita Aleksandrovich MILESHIN

27/07/1998

Korolev

Russian

Kamalia MEHTIYEVA

administrative escorting and arrest on 26 and 27 March 2017

judgment of 27/03/2017, appeal decision of 31/03/2017

Article 5§1: failure to comply with the requirements of Articles 27.1-27.3 of the CAO

72051/17

21/09/2017

Katerina Olegovna KORNEYEVA

17/02/1996

St Petersburg

Russian

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich PEREDRUK

administrative escorting and administrative arrest on 12-13 June 2017;

two cases (Articles 19.3 and 20.2 of the CAO): judgments of 16/06/2017, appeal decisions of 29/06/2017

Article 5§1: unlawful escorting and arrest;

Article 6§1: lack of a prosecuting party at the trial hearings in both cases (objective impartiality);

Article 6§§1 and 3(d) in both cases: lack of an opportunity to examine police officers at the trial or on appeal; restrictions on the defence ’ s ability to contest the adverse written evidence;

Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7: tried and punished twice on account of the same facts