CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 9 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 69854/14 and 12227/16 Mikhail Valeryevich FELDMAN against Russia and Oleg Sergeyevich SAVVIN against Russia lodged on 21 October 2014 and 26 February 2016 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The applications concern the applicants’ pre-trial detention and conviction for hoisting the flag of the Federal Republic of Germany on the Federal Security Service building in Kaliningrad in protest against the annexation of Crimea by Russia. The applicants were convicted of disorderly acts motivated by political hatred and enmity (Article 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced to one year and one month’s imprisonment. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants’ pre-trial detention and conviction amount to an interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 10 §   2? Did the domestic courts adduce “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts and the applicable standards under Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? Did the interference correspond to a “pressing social need”? Were the pre-trial detention and the sanction imposed proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?   2.     Was Mr Feldman’s detention based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and were the proceedings conducted with “special diligence”, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?