Communicated on 15 September 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 14856/16 Anton Valeryevich PODCHASOV against Russia lodged on 29 February 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In February 2014 the applicant reposted on his VKontakte profile page another person ’ s post entitled “Post on Russophobia ”. This text concerned a virulent reaction of many Russians toward Maidan protesters in Kiev, Ukraine. The applicant was accused under Articles 280 (calls for extremist activity) and 282 (incitement to hatred on the ground of one ’ s nationality/ethnicity ( национальность ) via a mass media outlet) of the Criminal Code. The criminal file contained reports dated 14 March and 23 May 2014 issued by the local Anti-Extremism Unit concerning the applicant and his various activities in 2012-14, in particular in relation to his political views and civic activities. The reports indicated that he was actively involved in a protest movement directed against the ruling regime and regularly posted various materials against it, giving negative assessment to its activity, including the President of Russia; he also expressed his opposition to the referendum in Crimea.

In September 2014 the criminal charges entailed inclusion of the applicant ’ s name into the “List of persons suspected of extremist or terrorist activities” and generated an obligation for the banks (in this case, Sberbank ) to freeze the assets on his accounts (some 200 euros), pursuant to the Law on Countering Legalisation (Laundering) of Proceeds of Crime and Financing of Terrorism. On 13 July 2015 the applicant was sentenced to eighteen months ’ imprisonment and was prohibited from engaging into activities connected with use of the Internet and telecommunications. On 4 September 2015, at the request of the prosecution, the appeal court replaced this restriction with suspension of the right to work for electoral committees. On 19 July 2016 the Constitutional Court of Russia dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint relating to the freezing of his assets.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s criminal prosecution and the sentences imposed on him or the freezing of his assets? In particular:

(a) Was it a foreseeable interpretation and application of Articles 280 and 282 of the Criminal Code that a person “reposting” another person ’ s post committed those offences?

(b) W as the “interference” “necessary in a democratic society”, inter alia , in view of his conviction for the sam e repost under Articles 280 and 282 of the Criminal Code and the severity of the sentences? Could the article, fairly construed and seen in its immediate or wider context, be seen as a direct or indirect call (in particular, by the applicant ) 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 article, directly or indirectly, lead to any harmful consequences? Could the applicant ’ s “reposting” lead to such consequences, having regard to the previous dissemination of the article by others?

(c) 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)?

2.1. Has the applicant been “deprived” of his possessions? Has the continuous interference 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 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

2.2. Did he applicant have an effective remedy for his above complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, as regards the inclusion of his name in the “List of persons suspected of extremist or terrorist activities” and, foremost, the ensuing freeze of his assets and review of the continued application of those measures?

3. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?