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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 9 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35581/16 Vladimir Aleksandrovich PODREZOV against Russia lodged on 16 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention and conviction for helping another person mount the spire of a skyscraper in the centre of Moscow and paint the star on the top of it in the colours of the Ukrainian flag. The applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting that other person to inflict damage to private property out of political hatred or enmity (Article 214 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced to two years and ten months’ restriction of liberty.   QUESTION tO THE PARTIES     Did the applicant’s pre-trial detention and conviction amount to an interference with his 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, were the pre-trial detention and the sanction imposed proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?