CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 26 September 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 12543/13 Artem Aleksandrovich LOSKUTOV against Russia lodged on 8 February 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was sentenced to two fines amounting to 25 euros under Article 5.26 § 2 of the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (premedidated public profanation of religious and cult-related literature, objects of cult and other attributes) in relation to a public display of a poster on three privately-owned billboards (without the agreement of their owners) on the streets of Novosibirsk. The poster was styled as an Orthodox icon, with a balaclava on the person’s head. This was done in support of Pussy Riot, a Russian feminist punk band members of which were being prosecuted at the time and who had used balaclavas as part of their performances. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the prosecution against the applicant? In particular:   (a)     Was the “interference” “necessary in a democratic society”, inter alia , in view of the following considerations: -     exceptions to the freedom of expression to be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, however, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria , 20 September 1994, § 50, Series A no.   295 ‑ A, and Giniewski v. France , no. 64016/00, § 44, ECHR 2006 ‑ I with further references, concerning the competing interests relating to Article 9 of the Convention); -     whether the poster unduly interfered with the right of Orthodox believers to express and exercise their religion, or denigrated the content of their religious faith (see Klein v. Slovakia , no. 72208/01, § 52, 31   October 2006); -     the intended combination of the artistic and political expression in the present case; the probable prevalence of the political message of the impugned artistic expression or the contemporaneous political or judicial context relating to the prosecution of the members of Pussy Riot or a wider debate concerning the relationship between the secular State and the religions; protection afforded under Article 10 of the Convention to “information” or “ideas” which offend, shock or disturb and also to the form in which they are conveyed; -     the form expression by way of a drawing rather than, for instance, actions including misuse by way of profane inscriptions on a religious object?   (b)     Did the domestic courts adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see Terentyev v. Russia , no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26   January   2017 as regards the approach)? Did the courts take due account of the factors mentioned in sub-section (a) above, in particular having regard to the requirements imposed on the domestic courts by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia in its ruling no. 21 of 27 June 2013 (in particular, paragraphs   5 and   8)?