Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

KILIN v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 10271/12 • ECHR ID: 001-177237

Document date: August 30, 2017

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 3

KILIN v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 10271/12 • ECHR ID: 001-177237

Document date: August 30, 2017

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 30 August 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 10271/12 Roman Olegovich KILIN against Russia lodged on 31 December 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applic ant was convicted under Article 280 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to a suspended prison term of eighteen months in relation to the uploading of a video and a music video to the VKontakte account, which allegedly belonged to the applicant. The courts considered that the above material contained calls for “violent actions directed at inciting enmity between Russians and Azeris ”. The applicant unsuccessfully denied that he had not uploaded any such material and had never accessed the VKontakte website from his computer.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was the exclusion of the public from the appeal hearing “strictly necessary” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the prison sentence imposed in relation to the applicant ’ s “liking” (as he puts it, симпатия ) expressed toward the impugned video and audio material, by way of uploading material to his Internet page? In particular:

- Was it convincingly established that the applicant had made calls for extremist activities, namely physical violence against persons of the Azeri origin?

- Did the domestic courts adduce “relevant and “sufficient” reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see, as regards the applicable principles, Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 204-208, ECHR 2015 (extracts) as regards the pertinent factors, and Terentyev v. Russia , no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26 January 2017 as regards the approach)? Did they specify which parts of the impugned material were problematic? Did they draw their own conclusions from the linguistic study of the material (see paragraph 23 of the Plenary Supreme Court ’ s ruling no. 11 of 28 June 2011)?

3. The parties are requested to submit ( a) a copy of the impugned video and audio materials, (b) the original Russian text and an English translation of the linguistics report which is mentioned the court decisions.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846