CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 juin 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sC16C0F86 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:8.35pt; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   Communicated on 30 June 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36801/09 Vladimir Yakovlevich KAPUSTIN against Russia and 18 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.   1.     Application no.   36801/09 lodged on 21 February 2008 by Vladimir Yakovlevich Kapustin, who was born on 12   September 1945 and lives in Yekaterinburg. He is represented by Anton Leonidovich Burkov. At 9.35 a.m. on 2 December 2006 the applicant started a solo demonstration holding a placard “United Russia Party – poverty and extinction”. In ten minutes he was approached by a senior police officer who, for reasons unknown, ordered him to stop the demonstration. According to the applicant, he refused to cease the demonstration and thus was brought to a police station. No escort or arrest record was drawn up. The applicant was required to make a written statement concerning his demonstration and placard. He was released one hour later and, apparently, continued his demonstration. On 3 December 2006 the applicant sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the arresting officer on account of unlawful impediment to a public event (Article   149 of the Criminal Code) and abuse of power (Article 286 of the Criminal Code). A refusal to prosecute was issued. The applicant successfully challenged it in court. The pre-investigation inquiry was resumed and then closed on several occasions. On 11 December   2007 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg upheld the most recent refusal to prosecute. On 11   January 2008 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld that judgment. The courts concluded that the applicant had voluntarily followed the police officer to the station and, after his release, had continued his demonstration.   Complaints : The applicant complains under Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention of the unlawful and unjustified interruption of his solo demonstration against the ruling party, of his being taken to the police station and then being held there without a written record being drawn up.   2.     Application no.   10970/12 lodged on 18   January 2012 by Yakov Aleksandrovich Grigoryev, who was born on 26   December 1984 and lives in Svetlogorsk, and Kamola Dilmuratovna Igamberdiyeva, who was born on 25   October   1989 and lives in Kaliningrad. The second applicant notified the Kaliningrad authorities of her intention to hold a public group event on 12 December 2010 at Pobeda Square. The authorities replied that according to the official plans there would be preparations for the New Year celebrations there on that day. The authorities did not suggest any alternative venue. The second applicant did not challenge the authority’s reply before the domestic courts. Instead, she decided to hold a solo demonstration close to the Mother Russia monument. On 12 December 2010 the first applicant held a solo demonstration holding a placard saying “Freedom for Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev! We plead for a lawful judgment”. After he had completed it and placed himself at a distance of some twenty metres, the second applicant held her own solo demonstration. She wore a t-shirt saying “Freedom for Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev!”. She completed her demonstration in five minutes. Following that, the first applicant was taken to a police station and held there for over three hours. The applicants were accused of breaching the regulations on public events. The cases against them were submitted to a justice of the peace. He ordered the police to submit a video recording relating to the demonstrations and showing the applicants being taken to the police station. By judgments of 3   March 2011 the justice of the peace held that, as confirmed, inter alia , by the video recording, the applicants had held solo demonstrations and had not breached the Public Events Act, including its prior notification requirement applicable to group events. The police lodged an appeal. On 16 May 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Kaliningrad upheld the judgments. The applicants sought compensation of 100,000 roubles (RUB) on account of the unlawful deprivations of liberty and the violation of their respective rights to express themselves by way of solo demonstrations. By judgments of 15 and 25 July 2011 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad granted the claims by the first and second applicants respectively and awarded each of them RUB 10,000 (equivalent to 250   euros (EUR) at the time). The first applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia , about the amount of the compensation and the first-instance court’s failure to make specific findings in relation to the violation of his freedom of expression on account of the interference with his solo demonstration. On 7 September 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment in respect of the first applicant. The appellate court considered that the interference with the freedom of expression had been acknowledged by declaration that the first applicant’s escorting to the police station had been unlawful. The second applicant also appealed. On 21 September 2011 the Regional Court upheld the judgment in respect of her.   Complaints : The applicants complain under Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention of the termination of the demonstration (at least, as regards the second applicant), which was related to claims by the opposition, and the escorting of the first applicant to the police station and his being held there. The first applicant also argues that the derisory amount of compensation was incompatible with Article 5 § 5 of the Convention and did not constitute an acknowledgment and a proper redress for the violations under Article 5 § 1 and Article 10 of the Convention.   3.     Application no.   34310/13 lodged on 8 May 2013 by Aleksey Nikolayevich Mandrigelya, who was born on 18 September 1989 and lives in Krasnodar. He is represented by Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina. The applicant, a member of an environmental NGO, was a candidate for an opposition party in the regional legislative election of 14   October   2012. According to the applicant, because he was dissatisfied with the massive fraud alleged to have been committed during the election, on 16   October 2012 he staged a solo demonstration at the central square in Krasnodar; he lit a candle and held a funeral wreath, thus expressing his sorrow about the election. Several police officers approached the applicant and, allegedly using physical force, took him to a police station. They drew-up an offence-scene inspection record. The applicant was then allowed to leave the station. By a judgment of 6 November 2012 a justice of the peace convicted the applicant under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) (non-compliance with a lawful order of a law-enforcement officer) and sentenced him to fifteen days’ detention. The judgment reads as follows: “The defendant pleaded not guilty. His guilt is confirmed by the administrative-offence record and reports from the police officers.”   On 9 November 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar held a hearing. Allegedly, journalists, the applicant’s friends and other members of the public were not allowed to attend it. On the same date, the appellate court upheld the judgment, holding as follows: “As part of a group of some thirty people the defendant participated in a presumed public event that was held in violation of the Public Events Act ... He refused to comply with [the police officer’s] lawful request to cease the commission of the offence and to follow him to the police station.” By a judgment of 20 December 2012 another justice of the peace convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO in the relation to the same event and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 22,000 [1] . The court held that the applicant “had organised” a group event (a static demonstration) without giving prior notification to the competent authority. On 5 March 2013 the Bryukhovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar Region upheld the judgment.   Complaints : The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his taking to the police station and the sentence of detention were arbitrary since he had not resisted or otherwise disobeyed any lawful order. Referring to Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains of being prevented from expressing his opinion about the election and of being arbitrarily convicted in the absence of any proof that he had organised a group event.   4.     Application no.   53545/13 lodged on 27   July 2013 by Tatyana Andreyevna Makarova, who was born on 18   January 1989 and lives in Moscow. She is represented by Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov. On 14 December 2012 the Duma voted through at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited the adoption of children of Russian nationality by citizens of the United States of America. On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading was scheduled for 19 December 2012. According to the applicant, she read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo demonstrations on 19 December 2012 in front of the Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo demonstrations was chosen because there was no time to respect the minimum statutory three-day notification period for other public assemblies. The applicant decided to hold her own solo demonstration and at 9   a.m. positioned herself in the vicinity of the Duma at some distance from other demonstrators. According to the applicant, she was arrested by the police several minutes later and brought in a police van to a nearby police station. At 10.30 a.m. the police drew up a report stating that the applicant had been escorted to the police station for the purpose of drawing up an administrative-offence report. An arrest report, drawn up at the same time, stated that the applicant had arrived at the police station at 10.30 a.m. The applicant made a handwritten statement on both reports that she had in fact been arrested at 9.30 a.m. when she had been put in the police van. At the police station the applicant was charged with participation in a public assembly held without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 §   2 of the CAO.   The applicant was released soon thereafter. On 15 January 2013 a justice of the peace convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000. The justice of the peace found it established, on the basis of police reports, that the applicant had taken part in a demonstration of fifty people. On 14 February 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment on appeal.   Complaints : The applicant complains of the termination of her solo demonstration, of her taking to the police station and conviction for an administrative offence; that, even presuming she had participated in a group event, such an assembly had been justified as an immediate and peaceful response to the imminent enactment of a controversial statute; and that her taking to the police station and prosecution on the sole ground of failing to observe the prior notice requirement constituted a disproportionate interference with her freedom of assembly. The applicant also argues under Article 6 of the Convention that owing to the lack of a prosecuting party, the first-instance court took on the role of prosecution and collected incriminating evidence, including by way of calling witnesses. The applicant also argues that the courts at both levels of jurisdiction were not “established by law” because after 1   January 2013 justices of the peace no longer had jurisdiction in cases relating to Article 20.2 of the CAO; neither could district courts act as courts of appeal in such cases any longer.   5.     Application no.   56703/13 lodged on 19   August 2013 by Aleksandra Yuryevna Astakhova, who was born on 1   January 1985, and Yelizaveta Antonovna Fokht-Babushkina, who was born on 1   January 1994. The applicants live in Moscow. They are represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko, a lawyer practicing in Moscow. The circumstances of the present case are similar to those of Ms   Makarova’s case (see application no. 53545/13 above). Officers R. and M. drew up written reports in respect of each applicant, which (all nearly verbatim) stated that each applicant had taken part in a non-notified group event and had refused to end it. On an unspecified date, the administrative-offence cases against the applicants were accepted for examination by a justice of the peace. On 16   January 2013 the justice of the peace dismissed the applicants’ application for the mandatory participation of a public prosecutor. The justice of the peace agreed to hear oral evidence from Officers R. and M. R. attended the hearing and was examined by the applicants. For reasons unknown, M. did not attend the hearing. By judgments of 31   January 2013 the justice of the peace convicted the applicants under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and imposed fines of RUB   20,000 on each of them. The court relied on the administrative-offence record, the police officers’ written reports and R.’s oral testimony at the trial. The applicants appealed. The appellate court heard evidence from M., who stated that some fifty people had been present at the venue on the relevant day, standing at a distance of 5-10   metres from each other and holding banners with similar content, that is to say statements against the draft statute prohibiting child adoption by American nationals. The appellate court also required an additional examination of R. On 21   February and 21 March 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgments in respect of the second and first applicants respectively. The appellate court also noted that M. had been on annual leave during the trial but had then been examined during the appeal proceedings. On 1 and 5 July 2013 the Moscow City Court examined their applications for review. The reviewing judge reclassified the charges as falling under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and reduced the fines to RUB   10,000.   Complaints : The applicants complain on account of the termination of their solo demonstrations, of their taking to the police station and the high fines for the administrative offences; that their escorting to the police station and their prosecution on the sole ground of failing to observe the prior notice requirement constituted a disproportionate interference with their freedom of assembly. The applicants also argue under Article 6 of the Convention that the lack of a prosecuting party in the case violated the requirement of objective impartiality.   6.     Application no.   68537/13 lodged on 23   October 2013 by Naylya Razinovna Ibragimova, who was born on 19   September 1988 and lives in Murmansk. On 17 August 2012 the applicant held a solo demonstration, protest against the criminal conviction of the members of the Pussy Riot group. She wore a balaclava on her head so that only her eyes remained visible, in a manner resembling the group’s performances. Several police officers were standing nearby but did not interfere, allowing the applicant to complete her demonstration. On the day of the demonstration the police did not interview the applicant and did not check her identity document. However, later on the police identified the applicant by other means. On 30 September 2012 the applicant was accused of hiding her face during a public event, which was prohibited by section 6(4) of the Public Events Act (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). Thus, in the authorities’ view, the applicant committed an offence under Article 20.2 §   1 of the CAO since the above violation amounted to a public-event organiser’s breach of the “established regulations concerning organisation and running of a meeting, demonstration, march or picket”. By a judgment of 16 November 2012 a justice of the peace convicted the applicant and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 10,000 (equivalent to EUR   247 at the time). On 24 April 2013 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Murmansk upheld the conviction.   Complaints : The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that her conviction was unlawful and disproportionate: the use of a balaclava (also used by Pussy Riot in their performances) was justified on account of the subject of the event; the relevant domestic law was excessively rigid and failed to make room for exceptions to the rule prohibiting hiding his or her face during a (group) event; the size of the fine was excessive.   7.     Application no.   66883/14 lodged on 18   September 2014 by Akhmad Dzhavid Abdullovich Khakim, who was born on 27   February 1988, and Olga Petrovna Noskovets, who was born on 28   April 1976. Both live in Sochi and are represented by Aleksandr Vasilyevich   Popkov. The first applicant is a civil-liberties and political activist and was at the time the local leader of Partiya Progressa, an unregistered opposition party. The second applicant is an ecological and political activist and was at the time the deputy leader of the local branch of Yabloko, an opposition party. In August 2013 the President of Russia issued Decree no.   7 concerning security measures in the town of Sochi in relation to the XXII Olympic Winter Games (held in February 2014). In particular the decree prohibited, between 7 January and 21 March 2014, public events (such as meetings, demonstrations or similar) that were not related to the Olympic Games. The applicants agreed to meet at a bus stop and then to go towards the entrance to the Olympic Park in Sochi where they planned to stage solo demonstrations to protest against the arrest of Mr V. On 23 February   2014 at the bus stop the first applicant was approached by three police officers who ordered him to show his identity document. The applicant complied by showing his passport while refusing to hand it over to the officers. He was then taken to a police station. Thirty minutes later, the second applicant approached the bus stop and was also ordered to show her identity document. According to the second applicant, she handed over her passport to the police officers. She was then ordered to come with them to the police station. The applicant refused and was taken to the station. Ms M. was present at the bus stop and saw both arrests. The applicants were accused of an offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO because of their non-compliance with police orders to show identity documents and to follow the officers to the station. The applicants were placed in detention and were released on 25   February 2014. On that date the Khostinskiy District Court of Sochi convicted the first applicant of the offence and sentenced him to four days of detention. On the same date the District Court also convicted the second applicant of the offence and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 1,000. The applicant was released after the trial hearing. The second applicant appealed, arguing that the police had had no valid reasons to check her identity and thus to require her to show her identity document. The second applicant and her lawyer were not notified of the appeal hearing listed for 18 March 2014 and did not participate in it; the appellate court proceeded to the examination of the file and did not hear any oral representations. The appellate court made no findings relating to the notification matter. By a decision of 18 March 2014 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment in respect of the second applicant. The appellate court stated that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by such evidence as the offence record, as well as by other evidence such as the arrest record and testimony. In particular, the appellate court mentioned that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by testimonies of Z. and B., as well as by reports from Officers S., Be., D. and Sh. According to the applicant, no such evidence was presented and examined at the trial. The first applicant’s lawyer also appealed. The first applicant and his lawyer were not notified of the appeal hearing listed for 20 March 2014 and did not participate in it; the appellate court proceeded to the examination of the file and did not hear any oral representations. The appellate court made no findings relating to the notification matter. By a decision of 20   March 2014 the Regional Court upheld the judgment in respect of the first applicant. The appellate court stated that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by such evidence as the offence record, as well as by other evidence such as the arrest record or testimony.   Complaints : The applicants complain under Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention of being prevented from holding their respective solo demonstrations, of being taken to the police station and detained there, as well as of their respective convictions for the administrative offence. In particular, the applicants argue that the police had no reasons to suspect them of any offence. The police actions were a disproportionate reaction to their civic position and the authorities’ intention to prevent any public protests due to the festivities concerning the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games. They also argue, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the convictions were based on the testimonies of the police officers who had drawn up the offence record; this record was, in substance, a bill of indictment but was used by the courts as a piece of evidence for convicting them; the applicants and their representatives were not notified of the appeal hearings and did not participate in them.   8.     Application no.   73423/14 lodged on 5   November 2014 by Akhmad Dzhavid Abdullovich Khakim, who was born on 27   February 1988 and lives in Sochi. He is represented by Aleksandr   Vasilyevich Popkov. At 1 p.m. on 17 February 2014 the applicant held a solo demonstration in Sochi. Five minutes later, he was approached by police officers who ordered him to stop the demonstration. The applicant was taken to a police station and then before a justice of the peace. On the same day, the justice of the peace convicted him of an offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO and sentenced him to thirty hours of community service. The Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi quashed this judgment on appeal and ordered a re-examination of the case. The case was reassigned to the District Court who listed a hearing for 20   March 2014. The applicant’s lawyer sought an adjournment on account of illness. On 20   March 2014 the District Court held a hearing. The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during it. On the same day, it convicted the applicant of the offence and sentenced him to a fine of RUB   20,000. The applicant appealed. On 6 May 2014 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment. According to the applicant, he and his lawyer had not been notified of the appeal hearing and thus did not take part in it. The applicant lodged a complaint before the Constitutional Court of Russia, arguing that Decree no.   7 (mentioned above) unlawfully interfered with fundamental rights since the Constitution only permitted restrictions of such rights by way of a federal statute enacted by Parliament. On 17   February 2015 the Constitutional Court declined jurisdiction because the provision of the decree concerning public events was no “longer pertinent” after the closure of the Olympic Games.   Complaints : The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to legal assistance was violated by the court’s refusal to adjourn and by its failure to appoint another lawyer; that he and his lawyer were not notified of the appeal hearing and could not participate in it. The applicant argues, under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, that there were no compelling reasons to terminate his peaceful demonstration and to take him to the police station; a solo demonstration did not require prior notification to the public authorities and thus he could not be lawfully convicted of the offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO. In any event, the restrictions arising from Decree no. 7 constituted an unlawful interference since Article 55 of the Constitution only permitted restrictions on fundamental rights by way of a “federal statute”.   9.     Application no.   23814/15 lodged on 7   May 2015 by Viktoriya Sergeyevna Muchnik, who was born on 1   May 1968 and lives in Tomsk. She is represented by Konstantin   Ilyich Terekhov. Between 4 and 14 January 2015 the applicant staged nine solo demonstrations to protest against the local authorities’ recent decision to deprive a television company of its broadcast frequency. It appears that some other people also held solo demonstrations. The applicant was accused of participating in public group events that had not been subject to prior notification to the local authority. It was considered that, while the applicant and other solo demonstrators did comply with the local requirement of a 30-metre distance between them, there was still a single event amounting to an “assembly” of several people. On 3 March 2015 the case against the applicant was submitted to the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk. On the same day, it was assigned to a judge who set a hearing for 4.30 p.m. At 1.45 p.m. the judge’s assistant informed the applicant accordingly by telephone. The judge dismissed the application for adjournment for two day because this type of case had to be examined on the same day it was received by a court. However, the judge gave the applicant an hour to study the file. The hearing lasted from 6 p.m. to 11.28 p.m. By a judgment of 3   March 2015 the judge convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000. The court considered that the applicant’s calls via Facebook to support the television company through protests and the applicant’s correspondence with other people disclosed that she was the group demonstrations’ organiser. According to the applicant, the court unlawfully aggravated the charge by modifying her alleged role from a participant to the events’ organiser. The applicant appealed to the Tomsk Regional Court. The appellate court held hearings on 10 and 13 March 2015. In the absence of a prosecuting party, the court took the initiative of calling witnesses and examining them. By a decision of 13 April 2015 the appellate court excluded the reference to the applicant as the events’ organiser but upheld the remainder of the trial judgment. On 7 September 2015 and 10 February 2016 the Regional Court and then the Supreme Court of Russia respectively dismissed the applicant’s applications for review.   Complaints : Referring to Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant argues that she was convicted despite her observance of the distance requirement; that the courts’ reliance on the reclassification rule was not a foreseeable application of the law; that she was ordered to pay a high fine for merely peaceful conduct, which however was judged as contrary to domestic legislation. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the absence of a prosecuting party and the active role taken by the judge (aggravation of the charge, calling and examining witnesses) disclosing a lack of impartiality and a violation of the principle of adversarial procedure and equality of arms; the applicant was not afforded “adequate time and facilities” to prepare her defence.   10.     Application no.   37513/15 lodged on 3   July 2015 by Aleksandr Yuryevich Rykhlin who was born on 4   May 1958 and lives in Moscow. On 22 April 2015 the applicant together with Mr Sharov (application no.   37528/15 below) and three others sent a written notification to the Moscow Mayor’s office of their intention to hold a demonstration with some 15,000 participants on 6   May 2015 on Bolotnaya Square. After expiry of the statutory period for the authority’s reply, on 28 April 2015 the applicants wrote to the Mayor’s office. By telephone on 27 April 2015 and then by email on 30   April 2015 they were informed that, for reasons unknown at the time, the Mayor’s office opposed the event as planned. Instead, the Mayor’s office suggested that the event be held on Marshal Vasilevskiy Street. The event organisers were also warned that if they rejected this proposal, they would not be allowed to hold a public event. According to the applicant, he informed all the putative participants accordingly by way of posting information on the Internet and via various mass-media outlets. On 6 May 2015 the applicant arrived at Bolotnaya Square, where some fifty people had gathered and were standing quietly. At 7.05 p.m. he placed himself at a distance from them and held a placard saying “On 6 May   2012 the police dispersed a peaceful demonstration here”. Immediately the applicant was arrested by the police and taken to a police station. On 7 May 2015 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow held a hearing at which it examined the applicant and heard representations from his lawyer. By a judgment of the same date this court convicted the applicant under Article   20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to ten days’ detention. The court considered that the applicant had organised and had run a “meeting”. The court also stated that the argument about a solo demonstration was just a means to avoid liability and refused to accept in evidence a video recording because it was “undated and did not contain the entire chronology of events preceding [the applicant’s] arrest”. On 13 May 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. Referring to the statutory definition of a “meeting” (the presence of people in a specific place in order to express publicly their opinions, essentially on social and political issues), the appellate court noted that some fifty people had been present at the square and that the applicant had uttered phrases with political content.   Complaints : Referring to Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was prevented from and punished for expressing peacefully his opinion on a matter of public interest. He alleges under Article 5 of the Convention that there were no compelling reasons to arrest him and to hold him at the police station; and, under Article 6 of the Convention, that in the absence of a prosecuting party the trial judge combined the roles of prosecutor and judge.   11.     Application no.   37528/15 lodged on 3   July 2015 by Sergey Aleksandrovich Sharov, who was born on 27   September 1956 and lives in Moscow. The circumstances of the case and the complaints are similar to those in application no.   37513/15 above.   12.     Application no.   52936 /15 lodged on 15   October 2015 by Aleksey Nikolayevich Lobanov, who was born on 18   March 1984 and lives in St   Petersburg. On 10 October 2014 the applicant held a solo demonstration, protesting against the inadequate medical care provided to his grandfather. The applicant placed himself close to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier memorial in the Alexander Garden in the immediate vicinity of the Moscow Kremlin, the seat of the Russian Presidency. He held a placard saying “I require punishment for those who failed to provide treatment to my grandfather”. The applicant was immediately arrested by the police and taken to a police station. By a judgment of 26 November 2014 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 10,000. The court considered that the demonstration had been held in a prohibited area that was adjacent to the residence of the Russian President. On 24 April 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.   Complaint : Referring to Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that there was no compelling reason for interfering with his freedom of expression.   13.     Application no. 56516/15 lodged on 6 November 2015 by Irina Leonidovna Kalmykova, Yelena Gennadyevna Koroleva, Mariya Aleksandrovna Ryabikova and Anastasiya Mikhaylovna Sheveleva, who were born on 10 September 1960, 17 June 1964, 19 April 1974 and 5   January 1991 respectively. The first applicant lives in the Khanty ‑ Mansiyskiy Region, the others live in Moscow. 1.     Concerning the events of 11 May 2015 (a)     Demonstration(s), conditions of detention and related ancillary proceedings According to the applicants, on 11 May 2015 the applicants and another person (a Mr Ionov) decided to stage, in rotation, solo demonstrations in front of Moscow detention centre no.   77/1 to mark their support for Lt.   Savchenko, a Ukranian national and military officer. [2] The police considered that the above amounted to a group event in the form of a meeting ( митинг ) and thus required a prior notification to the competent authority. The police arrested the applicants and took them to Sokolniki police station and Preobrazhenskiy police station. It is unclear whose solo demonstration was ongoing and was interrupted by the arrival of the police. Following their escorting to the police station, Ms Kalmykova and Ms   Ryabikova were placed in one cell measuring 3   sq. m. Ms Koroleva and Ms Sheveleva were placed in a similar cell. The cells had no toilets. The applicants in Sokolniki police station were eventually taken to a toilet; the toilet in Preobrazhenskiy police station was not functioning at all. No blankets were provided, despite the low temperatures in the cell. The applicants were not provided with food or drinking water. They were released at 5 p.m. on 12   May. The applicants brought proceedings falling within the scope of Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (judicial review in respect of acts, actions or omissions on the part of public authorities), in relation to the termination of the event(s), the arrests and conditions of detention in the station(s). On 14 August 2015 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow refused to deal with the claims, considering that they all were, in substance, related to the legality of the arrest procedure under the CAO and thus no civil action under the Code of Civil Procedure could be lodged. On an unspecified date the Moscow City Court upheld this decision. (b)     Ms Koroleva’s trial The applicant argued at her trial that she had stopped by to talk to Mr P. and had not taken part in any assembly. Mr P. stated that he had told the applicant about the planned event and had invited her to participate in it. The arresting officer affirmed at the trial that she had seen the applicant participating in an assembly and uttering slogans against the government. The court also heard evidence from the officers who had drawn up the arrest record and the offence record at the police station; and Officer G., who stated that she had been told by her colleagues that the applicant had taken part in a non-notified event and had uttered slogans against the government. By a judgment of 5 June 2015, the District Court convicted Ms Koroleva under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO because she had participated in a group event without prior notification and had uttered such phrases as “Putin, a liar” or “Putin, a thief”. The court sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000. The court considered that the applicant’s guilt was proven by the offence record – which was treated as a piece of evidence – the arrest record, reports and testimonies of the arresting officers and other officers. On 16 September 2015 the Moscow City Court reclassified the case under Article 20.2 § 5 and reduced the sentence to RUB 10,000. (c)     Ms Sheveleva’s trial The applicant vainly requested that the court summon the arresting Officers D. and U. to testify at the trial. The applicant also lodged an application to have an official designated for the purpose of presenting the case against her at the trial. Ms I. testified, under oath, that the applicant had not been participating in a group event. The court dismissed this testimony as an attempt to help a friend. The court heard evidence from Officer G., who stated that she had been told by her colleagues that the applicant had taken part in a non-notified event and had uttered slogans against the government. By a judgment of 5 June 2015 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow convicted Ms Sheveleva under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000. The court found it established that the applicant had taken part in a group event without notice and had uttered anti-government phrases such as “Putin, a liar”, thus committing an offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO. The court considered that the applicant’s guilt was proven by the offence record – which was treated as a piece of evidence – the arrest record and a report from Officer R. The applicant appealed, denying that she had taken part in a group event or had uttered any anti-government slogans. On 16 September 2015 the Moscow City Court reclassified the case under Article 20.2 §   5 and reduced the sentence to RUB 10,000. (d)     Ms Ryabikova’s trial On 12 May 2015 the District Court returned to the police for amendment the administrative-offence record in respect of Ms Ryabikova, noting that it was incomplete. Apparently, the proceedings were not pursued.   Complaints : The applicants complain under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention of the conditions of detention in the police stations and the court-house on 11 and 12 May 2015 and the lack of effective remedies in that connection. They complain, under Article 5 of the Convention, of their taking to the police stations and continued detention. Ms Koroleva and Ms   Sheveleva complain, under Article 6 of the Convention, of the lack of a prosecuting party and the appellate court’s failure to examine the arresting officers. Lastly, Ms   Koroleva complains that she was wrongly prosecuted for a breach of the Public Events Act, thus infringing Article 11 of the Convention. 2.     Additional complaint by Ms Ryabikova concerning the events of 31   October 2015 On 31 October 2015 Ms Ryabikova stood at the steps in front of the 1812 War Museum, which is situated close to the Red Square. The applicant held a banner “There is Putin, so no brain is needed”. According to the applicant, she was expressing her political opinion by way of a solo demonstration. There were no other participants or passers-by. However, several journalists were present and filmed the demonstration. Police officers P. and M. arrested the applicant and took her to a police station. She was released three hours later. The applicant was accused of an offence under Article 20.2.2(1) of the CAO for organising “a non-public event, consisting of the simultaneous presence of people in one place”. The case was submitted to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. The applicant asked the court to examine four people (G., I., Z. and Pu.), who had allegedly seen the demonstration and the arrest. The court dismissed this request because “the case-file material [did] not disclose that these people [had been] witnesses”. On 10 December 2015 the District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 20,000. On 8 April 2016 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. The appellate court held that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by several pieces of evidence such as the offence record, the arrest record and written reports from the arresting officers. The appellate court considered that there had been no need at the trial and no need in the appeal proceedings to examine the police officers.   Complaints : The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention of the termination of her solo event, her taking to the police station and conviction for something that was not classified as a public event under the Public Events Act and could not be classified as an “assembly” under the Convention. The applicant argues that her arbitrary arrest and detention in the police station was contrary to Article 5 of the Convention. She complains, under Article 6, of the lack of a prosecuting party, the absence of a possibility to examine in the appeal proceedings the police officers who had arrested her or had been otherwise involved in the drawing up of the administrative-offence file against her, as well as of the refusal of the court to hear evidence from the eyewitnesses on behalf of the defence.   14.     Application no.   56957/15 lodged on 26   October   2015 by Darya Vladimirovna Kostromina, who was born on 6   January   1987 and lives in Moscow. It appears that several solo demonstrations were held, in turn, at Manezhnaya Square in Moscow on 6 November 2014. The applicant held a solo demonstration, holding a placard saying “Putin: Russia’s shame”. Ten minutes later, she was approached by police officers B. and P. who seized the placard. The applicant was placed in a police car and was taken to a police station. On 24 December 2014 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow held a hearing. The judge dismissed the applicant’s application to summon the arresting officers, considering that there was enough evidence to establish the facts of the case. On the same day, the judge convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 20,000. The court held that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by various pieces of evidence such as the offence record and the police officers’ reports. The applicant appealed, arguing that the court had made no proper assessment for concluding that there had been a single group event on 6   November 2014 rather than a series of solo demonstrations, as well as regards the legality and proportionality of the termination of the event and in respect of the arrest vis-à-vis the freedom of expression and the freedom of peaceful assembly. On 28 April 2015 the Moscow City Court refused to summon the arresting officers. However, it did view a video recording from the event. On the same date the appellate court upheld the judgment, noting, in particular, that it could be concluded from the video and its audio that several people had been chanting slogans and had had clashes with the police.   Complaints : The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that she was deprived of an opportunity to examine the arresting officers and to cast doubt on the version of the events put forward in their reports and the offence record. She alleges, under Article 10 of the Convention, that the termination of her demonstration, her taking to the police station and detention there and the fine constituted a disproportionate interference with her freedom of expression. She argues, under Article 11 of the Convention, that the authorities arbitrarily classified the event as an “assembly” while she did not intend to associate herself with anyone present but to express her own views by way of a solo demonstration.   15.     Application no.   2707/16 lodged on 18   December 2015 by Mikhail Viktorovich Mordovin, who was born on 26   August 1956 and lives in Seversk, Tomsk Region. From 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 6 August 2014 the applicant held a solo demonstration, protesting against the persecution of political activists. On 15 May 2015 the applicant was accused of an offence under Article   20.2 § 2 of the CAO for holding a public assembly without giving prior notification to the competent authority. On the same day the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk convicted the applicant and imposed a fine of RUB 20,000. The court considered that the applicant had concerted with others to hold a static demonstration together; the applicant had been the event organiser; and he had failed to lodge a prior notification in respect of the event. The court also held that the applicant’s guilt was proved on the strength of the available evidence: the offence record drawn up by the police; various notes drawn up by the police, for instance in relation to unspecified video recordings; screenshots of several social-media webpages; and individual testimonies. In particular, the courts noted that the videos showed the applicant and some others standing next to each other talking. The applicant retained a lawyer and lodged an appeal against the above judgment. On 19 June 2015 the Tomsk Regional Court held an appeal hearing. The appellate cour