Communicated on 10 January 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 38825/16 Tatyana Mikhaylovna KOTLYAR against Russia lodged on 23 June 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Tatyana Mikhaylovna Kotlyar , is a Russian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Obninsk , Kaluga Region. She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Vasilyev , 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.

On an unspecified date Nezavisimaya Gazeta (Independent Newspaper) published an article in which Mr Putin informed the readers that the failure to comply with the migration and residence registration rules in Russia would be subject to criminal prosecution.

On 6 February 2012, as a response to the article in Nezavisimaya Gazeta , the applicant distributed an open letter addressed to Mr Putin in which she stated, in particular, as follows:

“Being an owner of my flat, I register it as a place of residence for anyone in need of such registration. I have wilfully turned my flat into a “rubber” one and have it registered as a place of residence for over a hundred persons.”

On 21 December 2013 the Criminal Code of the Russia Federation was amended. New Articles 322.2 and 322.3 established criminal liability for fraudulent registration (registration without intent to have a person reside in the premises). The amendments came into force on 3 January 2014.

On 11 March 2014 the Regional Investigative Committee instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of fraudulent registration of her flat as a place of residence of three foreign nationals.

On 9 November 2015 the justice of peace of the Town of Obninsk of the Kaluga Region found the applicant guilty of fraudulent registrations committed between 1 January 2013 and 1 April 2014 and sentenced her to a fine in the amount of 150,000 roubles. Pursuant to the amnesty act, the applicant was absolved from criminal liability. The applicant appealed maintaining her innocence. She claimed, inter alia , that (1) her actions had been a form of civil disobedience and (2) she should not have been convicted of the acts committed prior to the relevant criminal law entering into force.

On 23 December 2015 the Obninsk Town Court of the Kaluga Region upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law

Articles 322.2 and 322.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as amended on 21 December 2013, establish criminal liability for those guilty of fraudulent registration of his or her dwelling as a place of residence of a Russian or foreign national or a stateless person. The person may be absolved of criminal liability if he or she cooperates with the prosecution in uncovering the crime.

The relevant amendments came into force on 3 January 2014.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that she was found guilty of a criminal offence in contravention of Article 7 of the Convention.

The applicant complains that her conviction has violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the act of which the applicant was convicted constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when it was committed, as envisaged by Article 7 of the Convention?

If so, does the act for which the applicant was convicted fall within the exemption envisaged by Article 7 § 2 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?