Communicated on 23 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 60566/10 Aleksey Nikolayevich MUMOLIN against Russia lodged on 1 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Nikolayevich Mumolin , is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Tolyatti, in the Samara Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr I.I. Sharapov , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

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

From 1997 to 2010 the applicant was serving as a police officer of the Interior Department. In 2007 he was appointed as a neighbourhood police officer ( участковый ) with the rank of police major.

On 17 November 2009, following a whistleblowing video posted on the Internet by police officer D. from Novorossiysk, the applicant also posted a video appeal to the Russian human rights organisations and the Minister of the Interior. He stated, in particular, that the police had been overloaded with useless administrative tasks diverting officers from working in their neighbourhoods; that the neighbourhood police officer ’ s objectives were based on monthly targets of opening three criminal and fifteen administrative case files, a system fraught with perverse incentives ( палочная система ); that the police were understaffed and that the extra ‑ duty allowances had not been paid in breach of labour law; and that police officers had to buy stationery and office supplies at their own expense or with donations from persons released on parole.

On 18 December 2009 the prosecutor ’ s office of the Avtozavodsky District informed the applicant that his allegation relating to the non ‑ payment of extra-duty allowances had been confirmed and that the Interior Department of the Avtozavodsky District was obliged to rectify the breach.

On 23 December 2009, in another set of disciplinary proceedings, the applicant was issued with a warning on the grounds of his alleged failure to follow-up a telephone call about a missing person. The applicant challenged that penalty before a court, unsuccessfully.

On 25 December 2009 the applicant gave an interview to the Tolyattinskoye Obozreniye newspaper and stated that there had been no positive changes after his video appeal: he was still short of stationery, no uniforms had been given to him and he had to use his own vehicle for duty tasks. Moreover, the applicant ’ s superior had obliged him to hand in his service gun until the end of the official inquiry about his video.

On 29 December 2009 the applicant was charged with a disciplinary offence in relation to the video he had posted on the Internet and he received a notice of non-compliance with standards of professional behaviour on account of his public statements about the internal functioning of the Interior Department. The applicant challenged the disciplinary penalty before a court.

On 30 December 2009 the Interior Department of the Avtozavodsky District withheld the applicant ’ s end-of-year bonus on the grounds of professional misconduct.

On 26 January 2010 the applicant was charged with a disciplinary offence in relation to the newspaper interview and was issued with a warning.

On 20 March 2010 the applicant held a solo protest in Talyatti about the non-payment of allowances and his end-of-year bonus by the Interior Department of the Avtozavodsky District.

Following an official inquiry into the applicant ’ s protest, on 30 March 2010 he was dismissed from the Interior Department for committing an offence against the honour and reputation of the police.

On 14 May 2010 the Avtozavodsky District Court of Tolyatti dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint against the disciplinary penalty of 29 December 2009, finding it justified under the Militia Act.

On 3 June 2010 the Avtozavodsky District Court upheld the disciplinary penalty of 26 January 2010, having found that the applicant had made statements to the media about the internal functioning of the Interior Department, in breach of the Militia Act.

On 10 June 2010 the Avtozavodsky District Court upheld the decision to dismiss the applicant, noting that his conduct had been harmful to the police ’ s reputation. In reaching its conclusion, the court dismissed numerous public petitions and letters of support from the applicant ’ s colleagues and superiors.

On 14 June 2010 the Samara Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment of 14 May 2010.

On 21 June 2010 the same court upheld the judgment of 10 June 2010, and on 11 August 2010 it upheld the judgment of 3 June 2010.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention about the disciplinary penalties and, ultimately, his dismissal from the police following his public statements.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, to what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicant ’ s profession relevant to his claim and the State ’ s margin of appreciation in this field?