CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 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 }   Communicated on 7 November 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 74253/17 Aleksey Petrovich MANANNIKOV against Russia lodged on 17 April 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns several issues: (1)     a prohibition to leave the town of Novosibirsk for the duration of criminal proceedings on the charge of a verbal insult of police officers (final decisions: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 16 March and 13 July 2009); (2)     the applicant’s involuntary placement for an in-patient psychiatric evaluation in the framework of criminal proceedings against him (final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 9 February 2011); (3)     removal of M. as the applicant’s counsel on the ground that it was necessary to question her as a witness (final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 6 April 2011); (4)     retention of the applicant’s computer and electronic gadgets as physical evidence in a libel case (final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 21 February 2011). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards the prohibition to leave Novosibirsk, was there a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4? In particular, did the authorities give relevant and sufficient reasons for imposing and extending that measure and for refusing the applicant’s request to go to Moscow to collect his mother’s pension (see Rosengren v. Romania , no. 70786/01, §§ 35-40, 24 April 2008, and Ivanov v. Ukraine , no. 15007/02, §§ 95-97, 7 December 2006)?   2.     Was the applicant’s involuntary placement for an in-patient psychiatric evaluation compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (b) and (e) of the Convention (see Vershinin v. Russia , no. 42858/06, §§ 22-28, 20   September 2016, and Trutko v. Russia , no. 40979/04, §§ 31-46, 6   December 2016)?   3.     Was the decision to remove M. as the applicant’s counsel based on relevant and sufficient reasons and did her removal adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings as a whole, depriving the applicant of legal assistance of his own choosing in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (see Dvorski v.   Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, §§ 76-82, ECHR   2015, and Dudchenko v. Russia , no. 37717/05, §§ 154-60, 7   November 2017)?   4.     Was the continued retention of the applicant’s computer and electronic gadgets based on relevant and sufficient reasons and was a fair balance struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirement of the protection of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Smirnov v.   Russia , no. 71362/01, §§ 58-59, 7 June 2007)?