Communicated on 19 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 47810/17 Dmitriy Anatolyevich SEMENOV against Russia lodged on 26 June 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On three occasions the applicant was sentenced to a fine for publishing “extremist materials” consisting of a single sentence “Orthodoxy or death”. The first and second set of proceedings concerned his posts in 2013 and 2014 featuring a picture of a Russian MP wearing a t-shirt with that sentence printed on it (final decisions in both cases: the Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic, 27 December 2016). The third set of proceedings concerned his post about the above-cited judgment of the Supreme Court which mentioned the same sentence (final decision: the Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic, 18 April 2017). The proceedings were conducted in the absence of a prosecutor and without a trial record. As a result of his conviction, the applicant forfeited his right to stand in election and to organise public events.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. 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 that same t-shirt which was pictured on the applicant ’ s photograph? 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?

2. 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 assembly pursue any legitimate aim and is it proportionate in the circumstances of the present case?

3. Was there a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the applicant ’ s ineligibility to stand in election? Is this restriction proportionate to any legitimate aim in the circumstances of the present case?

4. Did the absence of the prosecuting party in all three sets of proceedings result in a breach of the impartiality requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08 , §§ 69-85, 20 September 2016)?