Communicated on 3 May 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 15758/13 Timur Rustambekovich SHARIPOV against Russia lodged on 21 January 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a removal on 4 December 2011, the date of the election of members of the State Duma (the lower chamber of the Russian parliament), of the applicant from a polling station, where he was an observer from the “ Yabloko ” party and was video recording the voting process. The electoral commission at that polling station considered that the applicant twice breached the regulations for video recording adopted by that commission, whereby he exercised “repeated pressure on the electoral commission”.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the removal of the applicant from a polling station, where he was an observer from the “ Yabloko ” party, on 4 December 2011 (hereinafter “the measure complained of”) constitute an interference with “ the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” (see, for instance, Mathieu- Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium , 2 March 1987, § 52, Series A no. 113; and Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 104, ECHR 2006 ‑ IV)?

Alternatively, was the measure complained of compatible with the State ’ s obligation under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to adopt positive measures to hold elections “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” (see, for instance, Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 106, ECHR 2008; and Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia , no. 29400/05 , § 107, 19 June 2012 )?

2. Did the measure complained of curtail the rights secured by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness?

3. Was the measure complained of imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim?

4. Were the means employed proportionate to that aim?

5. Did the measure complained of constitute an interference with the applicant ’ s right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information secured by Article 10 of the Convention? If so, was it justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Was it “prescribed by law”?

(b) Did it pursue a legitimate aim?

(c) Was it “necessary in a democratic society”?