Communicated on 19 June 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 25809/17 Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY against Russia lodged on 4 April 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Anatolyevich Navalnyy , is a Russian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Ms O. Mikhaylova , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a political activist, opposition leader, anti-corruption campaigner and popular blogger. He is currently running an electoral campaign for the presidential elections in 2018.

On 14 March 2017 the applicant notified the Moscow Government about his intention to organise and hold a march and a gathering in the centre of Moscow on 26 March 2017. The aim of the public events was to demand investigation of corruption by higher Russian officials.

On 16 March 2017 the Regional Security and Anti-Corruption Department of Moscow informed the applicant that the march was likely to disrupt traffic and breach rights of non-participants.

On 26 March 2017 the applicant participated in a peaceful march on Tverskaya street . At 2.28 p.m. he was arrested by the police, placed in a police bus and taken to the Konkovo police station of Moscow. The applicant was accused of organisation of mass simultaneous stay and (or) movement of citizens in public places which caused breach of public order under Article 20.2.2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative offences (“CAO”). He spent the night in the police station.

On 27 March 2017 the applicant was brought to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. The court found him guilty of a breach of the established procedure for the organisation or conduct of public events under Article 20.2 § 1 of CAO and sentenced him to a RUB 20,000 fine. Having announced the judgment in this case, the court informed the applicant that he was also accused of failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer and that this case would be examined right away. The applicant ’ s requests to adjourn the hearing and provide him with adequate time to prepare for the trial, to question the eyewitnesses of his arrest and two police officers who had drawn up the reports depicting the events of 26 March 2017 was dismissed. The applicant was found guilty of breach of Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO and sentenced to administrative detention for 15 days. The district court relied mainly on the administrative arrest and administrative offence records and the police officers ’ reports.

On 30 March 2017 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant ’ s appeal. It refused to question the eyewitnesses of the applicant ’ s arrest on his request and disallowed the applicant ’ s questions to the police officers during their examination. The Moscow City Court fully endorsed the district court ’ s findings and rejected the applicant ’ s appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law

For summary of relevant domestic law and practice see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , no. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 216-312, 7 February 2017.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest and detention on remand has been unlawful and arbitrary.

He further complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention that the proceedings in which he was convicted of the administrative offences fell short of the guarantees of a fair hearing. In particular, he alleged that the courts breached the principle of equality of arms because they rejected his arguments, refused to question the defence witnesses, and relied on the statements and reports of the police officers. Moreover, the applicant could not examine the latter because the court disallowed his questions. The applicant was not provided with adequate time to prepare for the second trial concerning breach of Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences.

Under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention the applicant complains that the authorities had unlawfully and arbitrarily interfered with his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.

Referring to Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that by detaining him the authorities intended to exclude him from political life and to prevent him from further anti ‑ corruption campaign.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the applicant ’ s specific allegations in respect of his arrest and detention on remand, was the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) What were the legal grounds for the applicant ’ s arrest and pre-trial detention?

(b) Did the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty pursue any aim enumerated in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for his administrative arrest and of charges under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences against him, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?

3. Having regard to the applicant ’ s specific allegations in respect of the administrative proceedings, did he receive a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention? The Government are invited to answer, in particular, the following questions:

( a ) did the procedure in which the evidence was admitted and examined comply with the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

( b ) w as the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence in the proceedings under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?

( c) was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him and obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? Was the admission of police officers ’ statements compatible with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?

4. Having regard to the authorities ’ letter of 16 March 2017, by which they neither approved nor refused to allow the march and the gathering on 26 March 2017, were these public events organised and held in accordance with applicable law?

5. Did the dispersal of the march and the gathering, the applicant ’ s arrest, detention and administrative proceedings against him interfere with the applicant ’ s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? Was that interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention?

6. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by these provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia , no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004 ‑ IV)?