CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Communicated on 1 December 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 33513/13 Yuriy Alekseyevich KUZMIN against Russia lodged on 16 February 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Yuriy Alekseyevich Kuzmin, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Pushkino, Moscow.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 February 2012 the newspaper Yabloko Rossii ( Яблоко России ) issued the applicant with a press card. He was entrusted with photographing and filming the 2012 presidential elections in the Pushkino District of the Moscow Region. He was to report on the election process, the counting of the votes and the presentation of the results. On 4 March 2012 the applicant arrived at a local polling station and began filming. A policeman removed him from the station. About two hours later the election committee of the polling station (“the committee”) issued the applicant with a removal order. He complained about it to a court. On 17 July 2012 the Pushkinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that the committee had removed him lawfully because he had not presented his press card and had not been filming from the area specifically designated for journalists. On 23 October 2012 the Moscow Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his removal from the polling station violated his right to receive and impart information.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?