Communicated on 21 January 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 19483/07 Svetlana Stanislavovna KOSTETSKAYA against Russia lodged on 20 April 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Svetlana Stanislavovna Kostetskaya , is a Russian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background information

The applicant was a police officer. Her minor daughter suffered from a spinal injury resulting from trauma. In October 2007 the applicant, at the advice of her superior, consulted an in-house doctor who examined her daughter and gave treatment recommendations. According to the applicant, her daughter ’ s health deteriorated after the consultation. She lodged numerous complaints with various authorities accusing her superior and the doctor of settling a score with her by intentionally causing harm to her daughter. A criminal inquiry was opened into her allegations but was eventually discontinued for the lack of evidence of a criminal offence.

2. Solo picket of 25 February 2009 and the applicant ’ s dismissal from police service

On 25 February 2009 the applicant held a solo picket in front of the Government of Russia building. She was wearing her police uniform and was displaying a banner “Dear President, the police mutilate children. Stop judicial arbitrariness”. Her picket lasted for about an hour and was covered by traditional and internet press.

On 13 March 2009 the applicant was dismissed from the police on the ground of a serious breach of disciplinary rules.

On 24 March 2009 the applicant challenged her dismissal before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow.

On 10 April 2009 the Tverskoy District Court found that by holding a picket and criticising the police the applicant had breached sections 17 (10) and 18 (13) and (14) of the Civil Service Act (see below). Her dismissal had been therefore lawful and justified.

The applicant appealed. She complained, in particular, that her dismissal from the police for holding a picket had violated her freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

On 30 June 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 10 April 2009 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified.

3. P icket of 23 September 20 10

O n 20 September 2010 the applicant notified the Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow of her intention to hold a picket from 1 0 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 23 September 20 10 in front of the General Prosecutor ’ s office on Bolshaya Dmitrovka Street, which ten people were expected to attend. The aim of the picket was to draw the Prosecutor General ’ s attention to corruption of prosecutors and to the absence of any effective remedy in that respect.

On the same day the Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow refused to approve the picket, finding that the notification had been submitted outside the time-limit established by the Public Assemblies Act.

At about 10.20 on 23 September 20 10 four people started to picket on Bolshaya Dmitrovka Street in front of the General Prosecutor ’ s office . As it was raining, the participants took shelter in the archway of one of the neighboring buildings. They displayed placards protesting against corruption of prosecutors. At about 11 a.m. the participants to the picket were arrested by the police and brought to a police station. They were released later on the same day.

On 11 November 2010 the Justice of the Peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the applicant guilty of a breach of the established procedure for conducting public assemblies, an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code. In particular, the Justice of the Peace found that the applicant had organised the picket of 23 September 2010 when it had not been approved by the authorities. The Justice of the Peace ordered that the applicant pay a fine in the amount of 1,0 00 Russian roubles (RUB, about 23 .5 euros (EUR)).

The applicant appealed. She argued, in particular, that she had submitted a notification on 20 September 2010 , that is three days before the intended picket of 23 September 2003, as required by the Public Assemblies Act. The refusal to approve the picket had been therefore unlawful.

On 28 December 2010 the Tverskoy District Court upheld the judgment of 11 November 2010 on appeal. The court found, in particular, that the notification for the picket had been submitted at 11.25 a.m. on 20 September 2010, that is less than three days before the intended picket which had been scheduled to start at 10 a.m. on 23 September 2010. Given that the applicant had not complied with the time-limit established by the Public Assemblies Act, the Prefect ’ s refusal to approve the picket had been lawful. By holding a picket which had not been approved by the competent authorities, the applicant had violated the established procedure for conducting public assemblies .

4. Pension dispute

The applicant sued the Moscow Interior Department for long-service pension payable to police officers after twenty years of service.

On 6 August 2009 the Tverskoy District Court held a hearing at the close of which it read out the operative part of the judgment, stating that the applicant ’ s claims were dismissed in full.

A copy of the reasoned judgment was served on the applicant on 31 August 2009.

The applicant appealed. She complained, in particular, that the district court had not read out the full text of the judgment at the hearing .

On 14 December 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 6 August 2009 on appeal. It did not address the issue of public pronouncement of the judgment.

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 17 (10) of the Civil Service Act (no. 79-FZ of 27 July 2004) provides that a civil servant is prohibited from making public statements or publicly expressing opinions or assessments, including in the mass media, about activities of State bodies or their directors, such as the State body in which he or she is serving or a hierarchically superior State body, unless it forms an integral part of his or her service duties.

Section 18 (13) and (14) of the Civil Service Act provides that a civil servant must not create situations of conflict capable of damaging his or her reputation or the reputation of a State body. A civil servant must respect the established rules for public speeches and disclosure of information relating to his or her service.

The Public Assemblies Act (no. FZ-54 of 19 June 2004) provides that a notification in respect of a picket involving several persons must be submitted no later than three days before the intended picket or, if the end of the time-limit falls on a Sunday or a public holiday, no later than four days before the intended picket. No notification is required for gatherings or pickets involving one person (section 7 paragraphs 1 and 3).

Article 194 of the Civil Code provides that an act is considered to be within the established time-limit if it has been performed before the midnight of the last day of that time-limit. If, however, that act must be performed at an institution, the time-limit ends when the institution stops performing the relevant acts at the end of the working day. Written statements and notifications dispatched by post before the midnight of the last day of the time-limit are considered to be submitted in time.

Article 199 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a judgment must be delivered immediately after the examination of a case. The operative part of the judgment must be pronounced at the last hearing. The pro nounced operative part of the judgment must be signed by all judges and included in the case file. The preparation of a reasoned judgment may be postponed for no more than five days .

The Courts Administration Office ’ s Instruction no. 36 of 29 April 2003 sets out an exhaustive list of persons who may consult a case file in a court building. The list mentions the parties to the proceedings, their representatives, other participants to the proceedings, public prosecutors and other officials (paragraph 12.1). The Instruction also set s out an exhaustive list of persons who may be given copies of documents from a case file. The list includes the parties to the proceedings and their representatives (paragraph 12.6).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that her dismissal from the police for holding a picket on 25 February 2009 and criticising her superiors violated her freedom of expression .

2. The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the refusal to allow the picket of 23 September 20 10 , its dispersal, her arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against her constituted an unlawful and unjustified interference with her right to f reedom s of expression and assembly .

3. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the reasoned judgment in h er long-service pension case was not “pronounced publicly” .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. With regard to the proceedings which ended with the judgment of the Moscow City Court of 14 December 2010, were the judgments pronounced publicly, as required by Article 6 of the Convention (see Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia , no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008 ) ? In particular, were the reasoned judgments read out at the end of the first-instance and appeal hearings? Was the full text of the judgments subsequently accessible to the public for consultation in the court registry? Were the judgments published on the respective courts ’ websites?

2. Did the applicant ’ s dismissal from the police for holding a solo-picket on 25 February 2009 amount to an interference with her freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?

3. As regards the picket of 23 September 20 10, did the refusal to approve the picket, its dispersal, the applicant ’ s arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against her interfere with her rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention? Was the interference lawful? In particular, are there any legal provisions establishing how the time-limit for lodging a notification is calculated? Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention?