Communicated on 26 September 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no 25309/15 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich BYVSHEV against Russia lodged on 12 May 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

A court banned as extremist material the applicant ’ s poem (written mostly in Ukrainian) that he had published on the VKontakte profile page in March 2014 in relation to the ongoing political situation concerning the Crimea. The applicant was then convicted of inciting hatred or enmity on the ground of one ’ s ethnicity (nationality), language or origin, and was sentenced to 300 hours of community service; the court also suspended, for two years, his right to teach. In the meantime, the criminal charges entailed the inclusion of his name in the “List of persons suspected of extremist or terrorist activities” and generated an obligation for the banks to freeze the assets on his accounts, pursuant to the Law on Countering Legalisation (Laundering) of Proceeds of Crime and Financing of Terrorism. The applicant was also discharged from his position as a school teacher.

QUESTIONS to the parties

1. Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the banning of the applicant ’ s poem as extremist material, his criminal prosecution and the sentences imposed on him, the inclusion of his name in the List of persons suspected of extremist or terrorist activities, and the freezing of his assets? In particular as regards the criminal prosecution:

(a) W as the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? Could the poem, fairly construed and seen in its immediate or wider context (including the contemporaneous political context), be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance, for instance on account of sweeping statements attacking or casting in a negative light an entire ethnic or other group? Could the poem, directly or indirectly, lead to any harmful consequences?

(b) Did the domestic courts adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 196-97, 204 ‑ 08 and 212-20, ECHR 2015 (extracts) as regards pertinent general principles and factors, and Terentyev v. Russia , no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26 January 2017 as regards the approach), in particular having regard to the requirements imposed on the domestic courts by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia in its ruling no. 21 of 27 June 2013 ( in particular, paragraphs 5 and 8)?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention on account of the freezing of the applicant ’ s assets? Has it been in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of this Article?