Communicated on 8 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 3973/16 Rafis Rafailovich KASHAPOV against Russia lodged on 31 December 2015

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 incitement of hatred and enmity on various grounds and sentenced to three years ’ imprisonment for publication, on his VKontakte page, of a number of texts relating to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s continued pre-trial detention between 28 December 2014 and 15 September 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 publication on his VKontakte page of a number of texts mentioned in the judgment of the Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court dated 15 September 2015, as upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 13 November 2015, constitute an interference with his 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?