CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 janvier 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sE24C0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 3 July 2014 and 7 January 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 43734/14 Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY against Russia lodged on 6 June 2014   The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS   1.     Following the judgment adopted in the applicant’s criminal case on 30   December 2014, the Government are requested to inform the Court of the measure of restraint currently applied to the applicant, in particular the grounds, the duration and the conditions of the house arrest ordered by the court on the aforementioned date.   2.     As regards the decision for the house arrest to be continued until the judgment of 30 December 2014 enters into force, does the deprivation of liberty in the period running from 30 December 2014 fall within paragraphs   (a) or (c) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Is the applicant’s deprivation of liberty in this period compatible with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the restrictions imposed on the applicant for the duration of the house arrest, has the judicial order to maintain the house arrest after the criminal conviction constituted an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information and ideas, 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?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed on the applicant on 30 December 2014, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?