Communicated on 16 November 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 11146/16 Anna Arnoldovna GRITSEVICH and Vladimir Viktorovich KIMAYEV against Russia lodged on 8 February 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns administrative-offence proceedings against a journalist and another person, who were arrested when they were observing a protest (as part of the first applicant ’ s journalistic assignment from an Internet portal Kavkazskiy Uzel ) and were taking photographs of the protest.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the second applicant complied with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? What is the relevant date to be taken into account? In particular, did Russian law provide at the time for a right to be served ex officio (by an appeal or first-instance court) with an appeal decision in the administrative-offence case? If not, did the applicable regulations make it clear when the full text of an appeal decision was to be finalised and made available to the defence? Was the appeal decision read out in full on 28 July 2015 in the presence of the defence? When was the text of the appeal decision finalised and made available to the defence?

2. Having regard to the applicants ’ specific allegations, was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention?

3. Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the arrest on 29 June 2015 and the prosecution against the applicants? In particular, was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? Did the domestic authorities adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see Terentyev v. Russia , no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26 January 2017, and Annenkov and Others v. Russia , no. 31475/10 , §§ 131-39, 25 July 2017), in particular having regard to the requirements imposed by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia in Ruling No. 21 of 27 June 2013?

4. Did the absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention undermine the applicants ’ right of appeal to have their convictions or sentences reviewed ( compare Shvydka v. Ukraine , no. 17888/12 , §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014)?