Communicated on 16 November 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application s nos. 44240/12, 52783/13 and 76021/14 Fedor Vladimirovich YAKOVLEV against Russia

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applicant complained in relation to five cases under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO):

(a) judgment of 25 November 2011; appeal decision of 1 December 2011 by the Lazarevskiy District Court of Sochi;

(b) judgment of 15 January 2013; appeal decision of 5 February 2013 by the District Court;

(c) judgment of 23 January 2014; appeal decision of 27 February 2014 by the District Court; review decision of 17 April 2014 by the Krasnodar Regional Court;

(d) judgment of 20 January 2015; appeal decision of 3 February 2015 by the Regional Court; and

(e) non-judicial decision to impose a fine; upheld on judicial review by District Court on 23 April 2012; appeal decision of 22 May 2012 (received by the applicant in April 2014).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Were there violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention from 25 to 30 November 2011 and from 19 to 20 January 2015 in Lazarevskiy police station and the lack of effective remedies?

2. Were there violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the use of physical force, handcuffs and truncheons against the applicant on 12 January 2013 and the absence of an effective investigation into that matter?

3. Was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in relation to the deprivation of liberty before and during the trial on 19 and 20 January 2015?

4.1. Were there violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b)-(d) of the Convention in relation to the appeal proceedings in the CAO cases in December 2011 and February 2015, in particular, as regards the legal assistance and the applicant ’ s absence from the appeal hearings? Was an oral hearing on appeal necessary?

4.2. As to the CAO proceedings in 2013, did the applicant have a fair trial? Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b)-(d) of the Convention, inter alia , in relation to the absence of an opportunity to examine witnesses R. and P. and police officers M., T. and G.; the non ‑ notification of the applicant about the date and time of the appeal hearing? Was an oral hearing on appeal necessary?

4.3. As to the CAO proceedings in 2014, has the applicant complied with the six-months rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (compare Smadikov v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 10810/15, § 49, 31 January 2017)? If yes, did he have a fair trial? Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b)-(d) of the Convention, inter alia , in relation to the refusal to examine the applicant ’ s son (see Pello v. Estonia , no. 11423/03, §§ 24-35, 12 April 2007) or medical professionals U. and Kh .; the refusal to order submission of the security camera recording and t he non-notification of the applicant about the date and time of the appeal hearing? Was an oral hearing on appeal necessary?

5. Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention or Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention on account of the refusals (by the regional court and the Supreme Court of Russia) to examine a review application under Article 30.12 of the CAO in respect of the judgment of 23 April 2012 as upheld on appeal on 22 May 2012?

6. Was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s criminal conviction in relation to the events on 12 January 2013 (judgment of 28 August 2013; appeal decision of 25 December 2013; cassation-review refusals of 15 August 2014 and 25 February 2015) after his conviction under the CAO (judgment of 15 January 2013 as upheld on appeal on 5 February 2013) in relation to the same events?

7. Did Russian law prescribe in November 2011 the mandatory photographing and the mandatory taking of fingerprints immediately following the imposition of the penalty of administrative detention? Were the “interferences” under Article 8 of the Convention in pursuance of a legitimate aim and “necessary in a democratic society” in the present case, inter alia , in view of the m inor nature of the offence (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 84, 4 December 2008; A.K. and R.K. v. the United Kingdom , nos. 45901/05 and 40146/06 , § 75, 23 March 2010; Murray v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1994, § 93, Series A no. 300 ‑ A; and Kinnunen v. Finland , no. 24950/94, Commission decision of 15 May 1996 )?