Communicated on 11 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 17548/15 and 67686/16 Darya Vladimirovna POLYUDOVA against Russia and Darya Vladimirovna POLYUDOVA against Russia lodged on 25 March 2015 and 30 September 2016 respectively

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In the present case the applicant, a civil activist, was arrested, placed in a pre-trial detention, which was extended on several occasions on similar grounds, and later convicted of public appeals to extremist activities and public appeals to a breach of Russia ’ s territorial integrity and sentenced to two years ’ imprisonment for (a) displaying, during a solo picket, a banner with a slogan “Not a war in Ukraine, but a revolution in Russia! Not a war, but a revolution!” and (b) publication, on her VKontakte page, ( i ) of a photograph of herself with that banner; (ii) of an untitled text which blamed the Russian President ’ s “capitalism” for terrorist attacks and catastrophes in Russia and called for a revolution; and (iii) of a text headlined “Let ’ s Give Putler a Smack With His Own Weapon” which suggested that a large region of Russia, commonly known as Kuban, should be annexed to Ukraine.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s continued pre-trial detention between 29 August 2014 and 25 February 2015 justified within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons when extending the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention? If not, has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant ’ s criminal conviction for displaying a banner during a solo picket as well as for publication, on her VKontakte page, of a photograph and two texts mentioned in the judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar dated 21 December 2015, as upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 30 March 2016, constitute an interference with her right to freedom of expression, secured by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?

3. If so, was that interference justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?

In particular:

(a) Was it “prescribed by law”? In particular, could the domestic courts ’ interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions in the applicant ’ s case be regarded as “foreseeable”?

(b) Did the alleged interference pursue one or more legitimate aims? The Government are invited to indicate those aims.

(c) Was it “necessary in a democratic society”? In particular, was there a “pressing social need” for the interference in question? Did the domestic courts base their relevant decisions on an acceptable assessment of relevant facts, apply the standards which were in conformity with the principles embodies in Article 10 of the Convention and adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons? Was the requirement of proportionality satisfied in the present case?