CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 30 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6A849601 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s20AFED81 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s51BE140A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sA9B2F559 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE35B190 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sEBA8B701 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sB736FED6 { width:142.07pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION         CASE OF MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 36673/04 )               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   30 May 2013     FINAL   30/08/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Malofeyeva v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 36673/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Antonina Vasilyevna Malofeyeva (“the applicant”), on 12 August 2004. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr A. Savenkov and then by Mr G. Matyushkin, acting and current Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights respectively. 3.     The applicant alleged that she had not been promptly informed of the reasons for her arrest on 27 November 2003 and that her appeal against the detention order of the same date had not been examined speedily; that her detention from 7 to 14 June 2005 had been arbitrary; that the related administrative offence proceedings had not been public and fair; and that the dispersal of the demonstration and her conviction in the above proceedings had also impinged upon her freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. She referred to Articles 5, 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention. 4.     On 18 March 2008 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Irkutsk. A.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant 6 .     In 2003 the applicant was charged with fraud relating to the alleged misappropriation of money in the private company she had worked for. Her case was brought before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk. In the course of the trial, the applicant dismissed several legal-aid lawyers and, eventually, the trial court appointed lawyer V. as defence counsel. During the court proceedings before the District Court an issue arose as to the applicant’s mental state and ability to stand trial. Thus, on 14   October 2003 after hearing the parties (including the applicant and lawyer V.), the District Court decided that the applicant should undergo an out-patient psychiatric examination in the regional psychiatric hospital.   However, the applicant refused to comply with this court order. 7 .     A trial hearing was accordingly scheduled for 27 November 2003, inter alia , to settle the issue of the examination. The applicant did not appear for which reason, the same day, the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention. The court held as follows: “Having heard the prosecutor, the defendant and lawyer V., in the criminal case on fraud charges against the defendant ... The prosecutor has requested the court to order [the applicant’s] detention because she has been obstructing the court proceedings by refusing to undergo a psychiatric examination and has failed to attend the hearing without a valid excuse. Article 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises a court to order that a defaulting defendant be brought before the court or to order or vary a preventive measure. Article 97 of the Code authorises a court to order a preventive measure if there is a risk that the defendant would obstruct the proceedings ... The court observes that despite a court order of 14 October 2003 the defendant refused to undergo a psychiatric examination ... In addition, having been informed of the date and time of this hearing, she failed to attend it and did not provide any valid excuse. Having come to the court’s registry on the same day, she submitted a request there and left the court building. These facts disclose that the applicant is obstructing the proceedings, which justifies her placement in custody. The court also takes into account that she is charged with a serious criminal offence ... The court orders her arrest and detention in Irkutsk remand centre.” 8 .     By a separate decision issued on the same date, the District Court ordered that the applicant should be placed in the regional psychiatric hospital for the purpose of the in-patient psychiatric examination. 9 .     On the evening of the same day, the applicant was arrested at her home and was taken to a police station. The arrest record, which was compiled at the police station, reads as follows: “Grounds and reasons for arrest: a court order ... [pre-printed text] I have been informed of my rights under Article 46 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: (1) to be informed of the nature of the accusation against me, to receive a copy of a decision to institute criminal proceedings against me, or a copy of the arrest record, or a copy of a detention order against me; ... My comment regarding the arrest: [the applicant’s signature] My arrest is unlawful; I have not had access to the document in which the grounds for my arrest are stated ...” 10.     Later the same evening she was placed in Irkutsk remand centre. 11 .     On 28 November 2003 the applicant appealed against the detention order of 27 November 2003 to the Irkutsk Regional Court. According to the applicant, without a copy of the detention order she could only make a preliminary statement of appeal. She dispatched her appeals both to the District Court (received on 2   December 2003) and to the Regional Court (received on 3 December 2003). 12.     On 2 December 2003 the applicant was served with a copy of the detention order of 27 November 2003. 13 .     On 4 December 2003 the applicant’s next of kin retained lawyer Sh. who lodged, on the same day, an additional appeal against the detention order. The applicant was provided with a copy of the lawyer’s appeal and, on 10 December 2003, lodged a request to be brought to the appeal hearing. 14.     On 10 December 2003 the Regional Court returned the appeal to the District Court to enable the latter to inform the other parties to the criminal proceedings of the appeal. This was done on 19 December 2003. 15.     The psychiatric examination of the applicant took place from 10 to 15 December 2003 in the regional psychiatric hospital in Irkutsk. On 16   December 2003 the medical panel issued a psychiatric report indicating that it was not possible to draw a clear conclusion as to the applicant’s mental state and ability to stand trial. The panel recommended further examination in Moscow psychiatric hospital. 16 .     On 16 or 19 December 2003 the applicant submitted (to the District or Regional Court) a document dated 10 December 2003 by which Mr   G., head officer of the medical unit of the remand centre, indicated that it would be opportune to examine whether the applicant could be released from detention. 17 .     On 22 December 2003 the District Court again submitted the applicant’s and her lawyers’ appeals to the Regional Court. They were received by the Regional Court on 23 December 2003. 18.     On 25 December 2003 the District Court held a trial hearing, during which it dismissed counsel’s application for release and ordered a new psychiatric examination of the applicant in Moscow psychiatric hospital. 19 .     On an unspecified date, lawyer Sh. submitted to the Regional Court a letter dated 25 December 2003 by which the Regional Department of Justice indicated that the relevant official registers contained no information about the applicant’s court-appointed lawyer, advocate V. 20 .     The applicant withdrew on 5 January 2004 her request to be brought to the appeal hearing concerning the detention order of 27 November 2003. 21 .     On 7 January 2004 the applicant was transferred to Moscow for a psychiatric examination. 22.     In respect of the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 27   November 2003 and according to the Government, “due to the winter holiday period the appeal hearing was listed in the Regional Court for 8   January 2004”. On that date, the Regional Court, however, returned the file to the District Court for an “internal inquiry”. Apparently, the reason for this adjournment was the need to verify whether the applicant had legal assistance during the hearing on her pre-trial detention on 27 November 2003 and whether Ms V. was a professional advocate. 23 .     On 19 January 2004 Ms V. submitted a written statement confirming that she was a professional advocate and that she had attended court hearings in the applicant’s criminal case “on 14   October and 17   November 2003”. 24 .     On an unspecified date, the President of the District Court obtained a certificate from Mr G., indicating that the applicant was fit for detention and was receiving the necessary medical care in the remand centre. 25.     After the inquiry requested by the Regional Court, on 4 February 2004 the detention file was returned to that court. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 26 February 2004. 26.     On 26 February 2004 the Regional Court heard the prosecutor and counsel, and upheld the detention order of 27 November 2003. The appeal court held that the certificate submitted by the defence was not sufficient to warrant the applicant’s immediate release from detention because another certificate issued by the same detention centre confirmed that the applicant was fit for detention, although she needed a gynaecological consultation, which could be carried out at a later date. 27 .     In April 2004 the Regional Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s request for a supervisory review in respect of the appeal decision of 26   February 2004. The court noted that V. had been present at the first-instance hearing on the applicant’s detention and that reference to the applicant’s own presence had been a clerical error. 28.     The applicant was released in May 2004. 29.     By judgment of 21 September 2007 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk acquitted the applicant of the fraud charges. On 28 July 2008 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. B.     Administrative offence proceedings against the applicant 1.     The demonstration in Moscow and the applicant’s arrest 30.     In May 2005 after the applicant had been released from detention but while the criminal case against her was still pending (see paragraphs 6-29 above), the applicant and two others, Ms I. and Ms B., decided to stage a static demonstration ( пикетирование ) in front of various public authorities in Moscow, including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to protest against the allegedly “unlawful actions of public authorities and corruption”. As the applicant puts it, this demonstration related to “the persistent difficulties in relation to pending cases involving law enforcement agencies and courts, in particular in the Irkutsk Region, and the failure of the local authorities to deal with their grievances”. 31.     On 30   May 2005 they sent a telegram to the Moscow Mayor’s Office informing the authorities’ of their intention to stage static demonstrations between 3   and 16 June 2005. On 31   May 2005 the Mayor’s Office acknowledged receipt of this telegram. 32.     On 7 June 2005 at 9.30 a.m. the applicant and her friends placed themselves on a pavement separated from the building of the Federal Judges Qualifications Board by a road. Ms I. and Ms B. unfolded banners/posters containing their message. At 9.45 a.m. they were approached by several police officers, one of whom asked them to show documents justifying their demonstration. The applicant explained to the officer that they needed no “authorisation” and produced the telegram message sent to the mayor’s office and the “certified” copy of the telegram (apparently bearing the mayor’s office stamp). 33.     Nevertheless, the police officer told the applicant and her friends to cease their demonstration and follow them to the police station. As the applicant and her friends refused to comply with this, the officer compelled them to follow him to the police station. At an unspecified hour an arrest record was drawn up. It read as follows: “[The applicant] was brought to the police station at 9.45 a.m. in relation to an administrative offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences for the purpose of compiling a record (Article 27.3 of the Code). The person concerned has been informed of her rights and obligations under Article   25.1 of the Code: [in the applicant’s handwriting] I have not been informed of my rights and I do not understand them ...” 34.     While in the police station, the applicant made a written statement, which read as follows: “I came to Moscow to protect my rights against various law enforcement agencies. As follows from my notification to the authorities on 30 May 2005, I was holding a static demonstration at 9.45 a.m. in conformity with the Public Gatherings Act. I have been arrested by a person wearing a police uniform who refused to introduce himself and to show his licence ...Without explaining the actual reasons for my arrest, [the officers] told me that their superior had ordered that we be taken to the police station ... Under section 18 of the Public Gatherings Act the police should not impede the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly ... There were no reasons to stop and disperse the demonstration under section 15 of the Act ... The officer refused my request to call my next of kin and to inform them of my arrest ...” 35 .     The police then compiled an administrative offence report, which read as follows: “Time, place and circumstances of the administrative offence: on 7 June 2005 [the applicant] held a non-authorised demonstration ... S/he has therefore committed the following administrative office: Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences ... The person concerned has been informed of the rights and obligations listed in Article 25.1 of the Code: [in the applicant’s handwriting] I have not been informed of my rights and do not understand them ... A copy of this document has been given to the person concerned. [in the applicant’s handwriting] I have not been given [a copy], despite my request.” 2.     Court proceedings 36.     Thereafter, the police decided that the applicant and her friends should be brought before the Justice of the Peace in the 375th Circuit of the Arbatskiy District of Moscow. The judge was informed of the incoming cases and scheduled their examination for 5 p.m. 37 .     A photocopy of a document dated 11 June 2004 and signed by the President of the Presnenskiy District Court indicates that under the regulations of that court the public had access to the premises until 6 p.m. during weekdays. It appears that the office of the justice of the peace who dealt with the applicant’s case was situated in the same building. 38.     According to the applicant, she and her friends were brought to the premises of the Presnenskiy District Court some time after 7 p.m. The judge first examined Ms I.’s case, in which the applicant acted as a lay defender. The examination of the applicant’s case started at or around 10   p.m. and lasted some minutes. The judge granted the applicant’s request to have access to the case file but the applicant unsuccessfully sought an adjournment to have time to study the case file and to prepare her defence. 39 .     The judge found the applicant guilty of non-compliance with a lawful order by a police officer, an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant was sentenced to seven days of detention, to be counted from the moment of her arrest on the same morning. The court held as follows: “... [pre-printed text] I understand my rights under Article 25.1 of the CAO. I have no challenges or requests. [in the applicant’s handwriting] I have lodged a request and challenged the judge but these motions have not been examined. The court has established the following: On 7 June 2005 [the applicant] failed to comply with a lawful order by police officers ... and failed to end a non-authorised demonstration in front of the Supreme Court of Russia ... The defendant has pleaded not guilty ... The court has granted [the applicant’s] request to have her co-participants in the demonstration as lay defenders in these proceedings. The court has dismissed her request to obtain external video recordings of the building of the Supreme Court since there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the administrative offence record, in particular as regards the commission of the offence, its place and circumstances. Mr S., police officer, has been heard as a witness and has made the following statement. He and his colleagues asked the demonstration participants to show documents relating to the authorisation of the public event. [The applicant] handed over a telegram. Since there were doubts as to the authenticity of the document, [the applicant] and the other two were asked to show their identity documents. Since they refused, despite several warnings, the police took them to the police station to determine their identities and to determine the circumstances relating to the lawfulness of the demonstration. Since [the applicant] and the others refused to follow the police, they were compelled to do so ... The court has seen the documents mentioned above, and notes that they have been amended. The court accepts that in the circumstances the police officers had sufficient reasons to doubt the authenticity of the documents. Therefore, their order to the persons concerned to accompany them to the police station was lawful and justified. It is also so in view of the defendants’ refusals to show identity documents. The court rejects [the applicant’s] allegation that she was not asked to show her identity documents ... Her refusal to show an identity document and to go with the police officers to the police station discloses non–compliance with lawful orders by police officers ...” Ms I. and Ms B. were sentenced to five and six days of detention respectively. 40.     The applicant was released on 14 June 2005, having served the sentence imposed by the justice of the peace. 41.     The applicant and her friends appealed against the judgments of 7   June 2005 to the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow. On 24 June 2005 the applicant was notified of the date and time of the appeal hearing. On 27   June 2005 the applicant asked that her lay defenders be informed of the date, time and place of the appeal hearing. 42 .     On 27 June 2005 the District Court examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 7 June 2005 against her. The court held as follows: “On 7 June 2005 [the applicant] held a non-authorised demonstration and held a banner containing a very negative assessment of the professional activity of the Prosecutor General, the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice. She refused to comply with lawful orders to end the violation of the public order, threatened police officers with prosecution, thereby resisting a lawful order by police officers ... Under sections 5 and 12 of the Public Gatherings Act one has a right to assemble at a venue and at an hour previously indicated in a notification to the competent authority ... Section 8 of the Act prohibits public events in the immediate vicinity of court buildings. Section 17 of the Act provides that failure to comply with a lawful order of the police or resistance to the police entails the liability of the persons concerned ...” 43.     On 1 July 2005 the District Court examined Ms I.’s appeal and discontinued the administrative offence case against her, holding as follows: “... The record of the administrative offence indicates that the defendant refused to comply with the repeated orders of the police officers ... However, the record contains no indication of the content of such orders. The reports made by the police officers state that the defendant had been arrested in relation to a non-authorised demonstration. Mr P., police officer, has explained to the appeal court that the administrative case concerned unlawful demonstrating. In view of the above, the appeal court considers that the administrative proceedings were initiated against the defendant in relation to a fact falling with the scope of Article 20.2 of the CAO [Code of Administrative Offences] ... The court considers that sufficient evidence was not adduced at first instance to find the defendant guilty of the offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO ... ” 44.     On 6 July 2005 the District Court quashed the first-instance judgment in respect of Ms B. and discontinued the administrative offence case against her, holding as follows: “... It follows from reports made by police officers that the defendant was arrested after [the group] had attempted to carry out a non-authorised demonstration; she failed to comply with repeated orders of police officers and shouted ... The record of the administrative offence refers to unlawful demonstrating falling within the scope of Article 20.2 of the CAO ... The record was not signed by the head officer. The court considers that sufficient evidence was not adduced at first instance to find the defendant guilty of the offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO ...” 45.     The applicant lodged numerous complaints against the justice of the peace who convicted her. By a letter of 5 September 2005 the District Court dismissed her complaint, indicating that, as explained by the justice of the peace, he had examined the cases against the applicant and her friends between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. on 7 June 2005. 3.     Conditions of detention 46 .     According to the applicant, from 7 to 9 June 2005 she was kept in the police station without food or drink. The cell had no windows or system of ventilation. She had no access to a toilet and had to urinate in the presence of other detainees, including male detainees.   From 9 to 14 June 2005 she was kept in a detention facility, in which, despite her illnesses, she was forced to clean the premises. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Detention pending criminal proceedings 47.     Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) provided at the relevant time that an investigator or a court could order a preventive measure, for instance detention, if there were sufficient grounds to consider that the defendant would flee investigation or trial, would continue his criminal activity or would threaten a witness or otherwise obstruct the proceedings. Article 247 of the CCrP provided that a court was empowered to order that the defaulting defendant be brought to the trial, or to order or vary a preventive measure. B.     Public Gatherings Act (Federal Law no.   54-FZ of 19 June 2004) 48 .     Section 7 of the Act provided, at the time, as follows: “1.     A person organising a public gathering (except for a meeting or a static demonstration ( пикетирование )) should notify in writing the competent public authority not earlier than fifteen and not later than ten days before the date of the event ... For a static demonstration by several people notification may be made no later than three days before the demonstration ... 3.     A notification should contain a reference to 1) the aim of the event; 2) the type of the event; 3) the venue(s) and itineraries; 4) the date and time of the event; 5) the expected number of participants; ... 7) the full name, contact address and telephone number of the event organiser ...” 49.     Section 12 of the Act provided for the following procedure on the part of the competent public authority following receipt of the notification: “1.     The authority should process as follows: 1)     acknowledge in writing receipt of the notification and indicate the date and time of receipt; 2)     inform the event organiser ... (on the same day – in the case of a notification received less than five days before a static demonstration by several people) of any alternative proposal concerning the event venue and/or time ...” 50.     An organiser of a public gathering had the following obligations under the Act: “4.   ...1) submit a notification of the public event in conformity with the requirements of section 7 ...; 2)     inform ... the public authority in writing whether the alternative proposal concerning the event time and/or venue was accepted; ... 6) suspend the event or end it if the event participants committed unlawful actions; 5.     The organiser of the event is not allowed to proceed with it if the above notification was not submitted in conformity with the time-limit or if the authority’s alternative proposal for another venue and/or time for the event was not settled with the public authority ...” 51 .     A public event could be held in any suitable venue. No public event could be held in the immediate vicinity of court buildings (section 8). C.     Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) 1.     Material law 52.     Non-compliance with a lawful order by a police officer, given within the scope of his or her professional duties, is punishable by a fine or administrative detention of up to fifteen days (Article 19.3 of the CAO). 53 .     Violation of the rules or procedure for organising or participating in a public gathering (a meeting, demonstration or static demonstration) is punishable by a fine (Article 20.2 of the CAO). 2.     Procedural law 54.     A person who is prosecuted in administrative offence proceedings has the following rights: to have access to the case file, to make submissions, to adduce evidence, to lodge requests and to legal assistance (Article 25.1 of the CAO). The administrative case should be examined in the presence of this person (ibid.). 55 .     A defendant in an administrative case may be assisted by an advocate or another person chosen by the defendant (Article 25.5 of the CAO). 56.     In exceptional circumstances relating to the needs for a proper and expedient examination of the administrative case, the person concerned may be placed under administrative arrest ( административное задержание ) (Article 27.3 of the CAO). The arrestee should be informed of his rights and obligations; this notification should be mentioned in the arrest record. 57 .     Depending on the type of offence, the competent public authority (for instance, the police) should compile the administrative offence file (including arrest record, administrative offence record, personal search record) and transmit it to the competent court for examination. The file should be sent within one day, or immediately if administrative detention or deportation may be incurred (Article 28.8 of the CAO). 58 .     A court should examine the administrative case within fifteen days, to which one month may be added if additional evidence is needed. However, if the administrative charge concerns an offence punishable by administrative detention, the case should be examined on the day when the administrative record was submitted to the court or within forty-eight hours of the defendant’s arrest (Article 29.6 of the CAO). 59 .     Administrative cases should be examined at a public hearing, except in cases relating to State or other protected secrets or where it is necessary to protect the honour or reputation of the person(s) participating in the proceedings (Article 24.3 of the CAO). 60 .     Chapter 25 of the CAO entitled “Participants in administrative offence proceedings, their rights and obligations” lists the following participants: the defendant, the victim, legal representatives of a person or a legal entity, a witness, a defender or a representative, an attesting witness, an expert, a translator and a prosecutor. Article 25.11 provides that a public prosecutor may institute administrative offence proceedings; to take part in the examination of the case, to make requests, to deliver opinions; to appeal against the court decision, as well as “to carry out other actions prescribed by law”. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION 61.     The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that she had not been promptly informed of the reasons for her arrest on 27   November 2003. 62.     Article 5 § 2 of the Convention reads as follows: “... 2.     Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.” A.     Admissibility 63.     The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 64.     The applicant submitted that she had not been present at the detention hearing on 27 November 2003, that she had been arrested on the same evening and had not been given a copy of the detention order. She became aware of the reasons for her arrest only on 2 December 2003 when she was given a copy of the detention order of 27 November 2003. The court order of the same date for her in-patient examination in a psychiatric hospital was only given to her in 2004. 65.     The Government argued that, as the arrest record compiled on 27   November 2003 showed, the applicant had been informed of the reasons and grounds for her arrest. 2.     The Court’s assessment 66.     The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 2 contains the elementary safeguard that any person arrested should know why he is being deprived of his liberty. This provision is an integral part of the scheme of protection afforded by Article 5: by virtue of paragraph 2 any person arrested must be told, in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with paragraph 4. Whilst this information must be conveyed “promptly”, it need not be related in its entirety by the arresting officer at the very moment of the arrest. Whether the content and promptness of the information conveyed were sufficient is to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among others, Ladent v. Poland , no. 11036/03, § 63, 18 March 2008, and Van der Leer v. the Netherlands , 21 February 1990, §§ 30 and 31, Series A no.   170 ‑ A). 67.     The Court has had regard to the circumstances of the case, as well as the type of the deprivation of liberty in question. The Court reiterates in this connection that the applicability of one ground listed in Article   5 §   1 does not necessarily preclude the applicability of another and detention may be justified under more than one sub-paragraph of that provision (see, for instance, Harkmann v. Estonia , no. 2192/03, § 35, 11 July 2006). Although the parties have not taken a stance on this issue, the Court considers that, in view of the circumstances of the case and the wording of the detention order, the applicant’s arrest and detention were effected on the grounds mentioned in Article 5 § 1 (b) and (c) the Convention. 68.     Undoubtedly, by November 2003 the applicant, who was charged with a criminal offence and was standing trial, had been informed of the nature and cause of the “accusation” against her, within the meaning of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, as well as of the “charge” against her within the meaning of Article 5 § 2. However, the Court considers that the above was not sufficient to also comply with the promptness guarantee as to “the reasons for [the] arrest”, which are also mentioned in Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. 69.     The Court observes that the applicant was arrested on 27 November 2003 under a court order issued on the same date because it was considered that she had failed to comply with an earlier court order requiring her out-patient psychiatric examination (see paragraph 6 above) and because she had obstructed the court proceedings in the criminal case against her by failing to attend the hearing on 27 November 2003 without a valid excuse. 70.     Having examined the available material, including the arrest record, the Court finds it established that the applicant was not present at the hearing on 27 November 2003. A lawyer was, however, present for the defence (see paragraphs 7, 23 and 27 above). It appears that this lawyer had been appointed as legal-aid counsel in the applicant’s criminal case. There is no indication, and the Government have not suggested, that counsel promptly informed the applicant of the reasons for her arrest. In any event, the obligation to inform under Article   5   § 2 is on the national authorities. In addition, in the absence of any argument or evidence to the contrary, the Court is prepared to accept the applicant’s submission that she first became aware of the contents of the detention order on 2 December 2003, that is, several days after the actual arrest. Also, it has not been contested that the applicant was not promptly provided with a copy of the court order requiring her placement in a psychiatric hospital for an in-patient psychiatric examination there (see paragraph 12 above). 71.     It is observed that the arrest record compiled on 27 November 2003 contained reference to “a court decision” as the ground for arrest, without any further detail (see paragraph 9 above). Arguably, this reference related to one of the above court orders. It does not transpire that before 2   December 2003 the applicant received information about the essential legal and factual grounds for her deprivation of liberty, so as to be able, if she saw fit, to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with paragraph 4. In the Court’s view, prompt knowledge of the reasons for the deprivation of liberty was relevant for the purposes of the applicant’s appeal against the detention order and/or the court order requiring her placement in the psychiatric hospital. 72.     Thus, the Court concludes that, while the applicant was aware of the charges against her, it has not been shown that she was “promptly” informed of the reasons for her arrest. 73.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 74.     The applicant also complained under Article 5 of the Convention that her appeal against the detention order of 27 November 2003 had not been examined speedily. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “... 4.     Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” A.     Admissibility 75.     The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 76.     The applicant argued that the appeal proceedings in respect of the detention order of 27 November 2003 took over eighty days, which was incompatible with the “speediness” requirement under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 77.     The respondent Government argued that one period of delay (from 28 November to 10 December 2003) was due to the applicant’s failure to submit an appeal against a detention order through the first-instance court, as required by law. It was then incumbent on that court to notify the other parties of the appeal. Another delay was caused by the winter holiday period, while another delay in January-February 2004 was due to the need to obtain further submissions and documents concerning defence counsel at first instance and the applicant’s state of health. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 78.     The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention proclaims the right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and ordering its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland [GC], no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000). There is a special need for a swift decision determining the lawfulness of detention in cases where a trial is pending, because the defendant should benefit fully from the principle of the presumption of innocence (see Iłowiecki v. Poland , no.   27504/95, § 76, 4   October 2001). 79.     Article 5 § 4 does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention. However, where domestic law provides for a system of appeal, the appellate body must also comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 , including the speediness of the review by the appellate body of a detention order imposed by the lower court (see Lebedev v. Russia , no.   4493/04, §   96, 25   October 2007). At the same time, the standard of “speediness” is less stringent when it comes to the proceedings before the court of appeal. The Court reiterates in this connection that the right of judicial review guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 is primarily intended to avoid arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Where detention is authorised by a court, subsequent proceedings are not so much concerned with arbitrariness, but provide additional guarantees aimed primarily at an evaluation of the appropriateness of continuing the detention. Therefore, the Court would be less concerned with the speediness of the proceedings before the court of appeal, if the detention order under review was imposed by a court and on condition that the procedure followed by that court had a judicial character and afforded to the detainee the appropriate procedural guarantees (ibid.). (b)     Application of the principles to the present case 80.     The relevant detention order was issued on 27 November 2003. The Court observes that the applicant’s preliminary appeal dated 28   November 2003 was received by the District Court on 2 December 2003; the full statement of appeal was lodged by a lawyer on 4 December 2003. The appeal was examined and dismissed on 26 February 2004. Therefore, the appeal proceedings took two months and twenty-five days. 81.     First, the Court observes that the applicant and then her lawyer lodged appeals, as required under Russian law, with the first-instance court to enable it to inform the other party/parties to the proceedings (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). It is true that, having lodged on 10   December 2003 a request to be brought to the appeal hearing, the applicant withdrew this request on 5   January 2004. However, that withdrawal was due to the authorities’ decision to transfer her to an institution in another town for a psychiatric examination (see paragraphs 20-21 above). Overall, the Court considers that the defence in the present case should not be held responsible for any significant delay. 82.     On the other hand, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the respondent State to organise its legal system in such a way which allows for the speedy examination of detention-related issues. The fact that part of the period in question fell on public holidays cannot in itself serve as a valid reason for a delay such as in the present case (see Abidov v. Russia , no.   52805/10, § 61, 12 June 2012). 83.     While the Court accepts that proper review of detention in the present case could have required collection of additional observations and documents relating to the applicant’s medical condition or legal assistance at first instance, the Court is not satisfied that the appeal proceedings in the present case were completed speedily, in particular taking into account the unjustified delays after 23 December 2003 (see paragraph 17 above). 84.     Lastly, it is noted that pending appeal against the initial detention order, on 25 December 2003 the District Court examined and dismissed the lawyer’s application for the applicant’s release. However, the availability of such recourse did not absolve the national authorities from their obligation to decide “speedily” on the validity of the detention order of 27 November 2003 (see Starokadomskiy v. Russia , no. 42239/02, § 85, 31 July 2008). 85.     In view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the length of the appeal proceedings in relation to the detention order of 27   November 2003. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION IN RELATION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT 86.     The applicant complained that her detention from 7 to 14 June 2005 had been unlawful, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the