Communicated on 7 November 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 74253/17 Aleksey Petrovich MANANNIKOV against Russia lodged on 17 April 2009

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns several issues:

(1) a prohibition to leave the town of Novosibirsk for the duration of criminal proceedings on the charge of a verbal insult of police officers (final decisions: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 16 March and 13 July 2009);

(2) the applicant ’ s involuntary placement for an in-patient psychiatric evaluation in the framework of criminal proceedings against him (final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 9 February 2011);

(3) removal of M. as the applicant ’ s counsel on the ground that it was necessary to question her as a witness (final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 6 April 2011);

(4) retention of the applicant ’ s computer and electronic gadgets as physical evidence in a libel case (final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 21 February 2011).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. As regards the prohibition to leave Novosibirsk, was there a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4? In particular, did the authorities give relevant and sufficient reasons for imposing and extending that measure and for refusing the applicant ’ s request to go to Moscow to collect his mother ’ s pension (see Rosengren v. Romania , no. 70786/01, §§ 35-40, 24 April 2008, and Ivanov v. Ukraine , no. 15007/02, §§ 95-97, 7 December 2006)?

2. Was the applicant ’ s involuntary placement for an in-patient psychiatric evaluation compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (b) and (e) of the Convention (see Vershinin v. Russia , no. 42858/06 , §§ 22-28, 20 September 2016, and Trutko v. Russia , no. 40979/04, §§ 31-46, 6 December 2016)?

3. Was the decision to remove M. as the applicant ’ s counsel based on relevant and sufficient reasons and did her removal adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings as a whole, depriving the applicant of legal assistance of his own choosing in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (see Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, §§ 76-82, ECHR 2015, and Dudchenko v. Russia , no. 37717/05, §§ 154-60, 7 November 2017)?

4. Was the continued retention of the applicant ’ s computer and electronic gadgets based on relevant and sufficient reasons and was a fair balance struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirement of the protection of the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Smirnov v. Russia , no. 71362/01, §§ 58-59, 7 June 2007)?