CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 novembre 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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD3B76D70 { height:41.25pt } .sA0A870AB { width:4.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s407FDF4B { width:14.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9F205219 { width:11.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF5B906E0 { width:39.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBBED7958 { width:29.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE79AE7A1 { width:4.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sA32E384D { width:14.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF28EFF0C { width:11.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4036F6CA { width:39.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD462353F { width:29.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s563A2640 { height:169.9pt }   Communicated on 2 November 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 58358/14 Boris Borisovich ROMANOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern verbal and physical violence against LGBT activists committed by counter-demonstrators during gay-pride events of 17   May 2012 and 29 June and 12 October 2013 in St Petersburg and 20   January 2013 in Voronezh. The attacker of Mr Romanov was convicted of public disorder with the use of weapons or articles used as weapons, a criminal offence under Article   213 § 1 (a) and sentenced one year’s imprisonment conditional on one year’s probation. He was later amnestied but ordered to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 50,000 (RUB) Russian roubles to Mr   Romanov. One of Mr Lebedev’s attackers was convicted for assault and battery aggravated by public disorder, an offence under Article 116 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code, but exempted from penalty. The criminal proceedings against the other attackers of Mr Lebedev and against the attackers of Mr   Nasonov were suspended as they could not be identified. The prosecutor’s office refused to open criminal proceedings against the attackers of Mr Starov, Ms Pitenova, Mr Fedorov and Mr Prokopenko, finding that there was no evidence of a criminal offence subject to public prosecution, such as an offence under Article 116 § 2 (a) or (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (assault and battery aggravated by public disorder or for reasons of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity or for reasons of hatred or enmity towards a particular social group). They advised the applicants to bring a private prosecution under Article 116 § 1 (assault and battery). During the public event of 12 October 2013 many participants to the gay ‑ pride event, including Mr Prokopenko, Mr   Fedorov and Ms Levina, were arrested on suspicion of swearing in public and detained for several hours. None of the counter-demonstrators who had assaulted them was arrested. The administrative offence proceedings against the applicants were later discontinued for the lack of evidence of an administrative offence. Mr   Prokopenko was awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the unlawful administrative offence proceedings and arrest in the amount of RUB 2,000 (about 27 euros). QUESTIONS 1.     Did the domestic authorities provide adequate protection to the applicants from the attacks of private individuals allegedly motivated by hatred against homosexuals during the public events of 17 May 2012 and 20   January and 29 June 201, as required by Article 3 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see Identoba and Others v.   Georgia , no. 73235/12, §§ 72-74, 12 May 2015)?   2.     In respect of Mr Romanov, Mr Starov, Ms Pitenova, Mr Fedorov and Mr Prokopenko, did the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into the alleged ill-treatment as required by Articles 3 and 8 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, did they investigate the existence of a discriminatory motive behind the acts of violence, namely whether the attacks against them had been motivated by hatred against homosexuals (see M.C. and A.C. v.   Romania , no.   12060/12, §§ 105-26, 12 April 2016)?   3.     As regards Mr Prokopenko’s, Mr   Fedorov’s and Ms Levina’s arrest and detention on 12   October 2013, were they deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, was there a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed an administrative offence? Were their arrest and detention carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law? How many persons were arrested in total? How many of them were participants to the gay-pride event and how many of them were counter-demonstrators?   4.     Did Mr Prokopenko’s, Mr   Fedorov’s and Ms Levina’s arrest and detention on 12   October 2013 violate their right to freedom of assembly contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?   5.     Did the domestic authorities ensure that the public events of 17 May 2012 and 20   January, 29 June and 12 October 2013 attended by the applicants could take place peacefully by sufficiently containing homophobic and violent counter-demonstrators? Did the authorities comply with their positive obligations under Article 11 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see Identoba and Others v.   Georgia, no.   73235/12, §§ 93-100, 12 May 2015)? APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   58358/14 11/08/2014 Boris Borisovich ROMANOV 10/12/1985 St Petersburg Mr D. BARTENEV   7146/15 29/01/2015 Pavel Vladimirovich LEBEDEV 24/10/1989 Voronezh Andrey Sergeyevich NASONOV 14/07/1989 Lipetsk Region Ms O. GNEZDILOVA   25887/15 15/05/2015 Sergey Aleksandrovich STAROV 30/11/1991 St Petersburg Anna Viktorovna PITENOVA 26/05/1989 St Petersburg Kirill Vladimirovich FEDOROV 02/03/1992 Tyumen Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich PROKOPENKO 31/08/1988 St Petersburg Svetlana Dmitriyevna LEVINA 27/02/1974 St Petersburg Mr D. BARTENEV Ms V. FROLOVA Ms K. MIKHAYLOVA