CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mai 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 14 May 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13550/16 Konstantin Vyacheslavovich ZHARINOV against Russia lodged on 3 March 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In the present case the applicant was convicted in criminal proceedings of public appeals to extremist activities and sentenced to a suspended term of two years’ imprisonment for reposting, on his VKontakte page, a text headlined “Address by “Praviy Sektor” [1] to the Peoples of Russia”. The appellate court upheld the conviction but absolved the applicant from serving the sentence due to an amnesty act. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s criminal conviction for reposting on his VKontakte page a text headlined “Address by “Praviy Sektor” to the Peoples of Russia” constitute an interference with his right to freedom of expression, secured by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?   In particular: (a) Was it “prescribed by law”? In particular, could the domestic courts’ interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions in the applicant’s case be regarded as “foreseeable”?   (b)     Did the alleged interference pursue one or more legitimate aims? The Government are invited to indicate those aims.   (c)     Was it “necessary in a democratic society”? In particular, was there a “pressing social need” for the interference in question? Did the domestic courts base their relevant decisions on an acceptable assessment of relevant facts, apply the standards which were in conformity with the principles embodies in Article 10 of the Convention and adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons? Was the requirement of proportionality satisfied in the present case? [1] “Praviy Sektor” ( Right Sector ) is a far-right Ukrainian nationalist political party and movement, which was banned as extremist in Russia in 2014.