Communicated on 17 March 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 13490/11 Sergey Viktorovich KRYUKOV against Russia lodged on 30 January 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The file contains two applications forms:

(1) The applicant published four articles on the ichkeria.info web-site which appear to have criticised Russia ’ s treatment of Turkish-speaking minorities. By judgment of 6 July 2010, a District Court in Ulyanovsk convicted the applicant of incitement of hatred to Russians and Orthodox believers and sentenced him to a fine. Appeal judgment: 11 August 2010.

(2) The linguistic findings made in the criminal proceedings were subsequently relied upon by the prosecutor to secure judicial decisions (a) pronouncing the same publications to be extremist material (judgment of 18 October 2010), (b) requiring the internet service provider to restrict access to the ichkeria.info web-site (judgment of 19 January 2011).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. The parties are requested to submit ( a) a copy of the publications: « Русизм - праздник зла », « Русское поле : семена лжи породили сорняк сатанизма », « Униженные обречены », « Голоса совести в океане лжи » , (b) the original Russian text and an English translation of the linguistic study of those publications which is mentioned on p. 3 of the appeal judgment of 11 August 2010, (c) a copy of the judicial decision on the applicant ’ s appeal against the judgment of 18 October 2010.

2. As regards the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the pronouncement of his publications to be extremist material, was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts adduce “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the interference? Did they base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts? Did they specify which parts of the publications were problematic? Did they draw their own conclusions from the linguistic study of the publications (see point 23 of the Supreme Court ’ s r esolution no. 11 of 28 June 2011) ? Did they establish the applicant ’ s direct intent to incite hatred?

3. As regards the proceedings for blocking access to the ichkeria.info web-site in connection with the applicant ’ s publications, was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? Is it open to the applicant to complain about the requirement that the internet service provider restrict access to the ichkeria.info web-site containing his publication? Was the applicant allowed to take part in those proceedings and to be heard by the courts? Did the applicant have an effective remedy in this connection, as required by Article 13?