CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 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 9 March 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 67894/17 Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY against Russia lodged on 30 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the allegedly unlawful and disproportionate measures taken against the applicant as an organiser of a public march in Moscow on 12 June 2017. The applicant complains about his arrest before the beginning of the march, detention in police custody and administrative conviction for the organisation of this public event. He also alleges that these measures had pursued the goals of preventing him from pursuing his political activities, and obstructing his presidential campaign, which went beyond the legitimate aims prescribed by the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the applicant’s specific allegations in respect of his arrest and detention in police custody, was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     What were the legal grounds for the applicant’s arrest and detention in police custody before the trial? (b)     Did the applicant’s deprivation of liberty pursue any aim enumerated in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant receive a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the administrative proceedings against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the procedure in which the evidence was admitted and examined comply with the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, as required by that provision?   3.     Was the applicant an “organiser” of the public event in Moscow on 12   June 2017 in terms of the Public Events Act ( Федеральный закон «О собраниях, митингах, демонстрациях, шествиях и пикетированиях» )?   4.     Did the applicant’s arrest before the march and the administrative proceedings against him constitute an interference with his rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention?   5.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by these provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia , no. 70276/01, ECHR   2004 ‑ IV)?