CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 8 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 74343/17 Dmitriy Viktorovich VALKOVICH against Russia lodged on 6 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the local authorities’ refusal to approve the location of a public event planned by the applicant on 26 March 2017 in Krasnodar. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the authorities’ decision before the courts. On 26 March 2017 he was arrested and convicted of organising an unapproved public event. He was sentenced to ten days’ administrative detention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the Krasnodar Town Administration’s decision of 17 March 2017 refusing to approve the location chosen by the applicant for the public event of 26 March 2017, as well as the applicant’s arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against him, violate his right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular: –     Did he have at her disposal an effective remedy which would allow an enforceable judicial decision to be obtained on the authorities’ refusal to approve the location, time or manner of conduct of a public event before its planned date (compare with Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 342-51, 7 February 2017)? In particular, did the fact that the applicant’s complaint had been examined after the planned date of the event, in breach of the requirements of the domestic law, undermine the effectiveness of the remedy? –     Does the scope of judicial review under the Code of Administrative Procedure include an assessment of “necessity in a democratic society” and “proportionality” of the local authorities’ proposal to change the location of a public event (compare with Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , cited above, §§ 352-60, 7 February 2017)?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, –     Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court in the administrative offence proceedings entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v.   Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016)? –     Was the applicant afforded the opportunity to plead his case in the domestic courts, in particular to submit additional evidence or to call defence witnesses (see Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2 ), no.   51988/07, §§ 48-51, 13 December 2016)? –     Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? –     Was the applicant notified of the appeal hearing of 6 April 2017 before the Krasnodar Regional Court in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend? If not, was there a violation of the applicant’s right to an adversarial trial and the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance under Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide documents confirming that the applicant was notified of the date and time of the hearing of 6 April 2017.   4.     Did the immediate execution of the sentence of administrative detention disclose violations of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention and Article   2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see, in a similar context, Shvydka v. Ukraine , no. 17888/12, §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014)?