CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 3 April 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 37448/09 Dmitriy Vadimovich KRYLOV against Russia lodged on 20 May 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The file contains two applications forms: (1)     The first one, lodged on 24 April 2009, concerns the December 2008 election to the regional legislature. The applicant’s registration as a candidate was annulled on the ground that he called to vote “against everyone, except [himself]”. Final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 28   February 2009. (2)     The second form, lodged on 29 April 2010, concerns the civil defamation proceedings instituted by the Volgograd city administration against the applicant in connection with his criticism of the city mayor. Final decision: Volgograd Regional Court, 11 December 2009.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the annulment of the applicant’s registration as a candidate in the election to the regional legislature?   2.     Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the finding of the applicant’s liability in defamation (see Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia , no. 25968/02, 31 July 2007)?