CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 15 June 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 78686/17 Ivan Konstantinovich VASHCHENKO against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASEs The applicants were arrested and then detained awaiting their trials for periods exceeding three hours, which were allowable in respect of people accused of the offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO). The present applications also concern the applicants’ sentences to fines or fines and detention for the same facts relating to the alleged non-observance of the requirements of the Public Events Act, under Article 19.3 § 1 and Article   20.2 § 5 of the CAO, such as the continued participation in a non ‑ notified public event, despite warnings from the police (Article 20.2) and non-compliance with a police order to stop participation in the same event and to disperse (Article 19.3). The cases were processed separately (Article 4.4 of the CAO; section 4 of the Plenary Supreme Court’s ruling of 25 March 2005). Appeal hearings were also held separately and consecutively (in some applications, on the same day and/or by the same appeal judge). The appeal courts in the second cases either omitted to deal with the ne bis in idem issue (application no. 78686/17), or stated that prosecution under one Article had not been a ground for barring prosecution under the other one because the offences had different “protected subject ‑ matter” (application no.   3646/18) or because the corpus delicti had been constituted by different actions (application no. 3785/18). Common questionS Was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention in each application? In particular: -     As to the sets of proceedings under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, when there was a “final” decision in one set of proceedings and did it entail duplication of proceedings and punishments? -     Alternatively (see A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, § 126, ECHR 2016), did the proceedings have a sufficiently close connection - both in substance and in time - with each other and constitute complementary legal responses to socially offensive conduct (ibid., §§   121 ‑ 25 and 130-32)? If yes, did such accumulated legal responses represent an excessive burden for each applicant and entail, in substance or in effect, double jeopardy to his or her detriment (ibid.)? Were the possible consequences of organising the legal treatment of the conduct concerned in such a manner proportionate and foreseeable for each applicant? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS In view of the Court’s findings in Nemtsov v. Russia , no. 1774/11, 31   July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no. 76204/11, 4   December 2014; Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, 26   April 2016; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016; Frumkin v. Russia , no.   74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov and Others v.   Russia (no.   2) , no.   51988/07, 13   December 2016; Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7   February 2017; and Annenkov and   Others v. Russia , no. 31475/10, 25 July 2017:   1.     Were there violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of administrative escorting and arrest ( административное доставление и задержание )? 2.     Having regard to the specific allegations in applications nos.   78686/17, 3649/18 and 3785/18, did each applicant have a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in compliance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? 3.     Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant in application no. 78686/17 acting as an “observer” during a public demonstration and exercising his freedom to impart and receive information? 4.     Were there violations of Article 11 of the Convention on account of the administrative arrests and double prosecution for administrative offences in relation to the alleged non-observations of the requirements of the Public Events Act? No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by   78686/17 25/10/2017 Ivan Konstantinovich VASHCHENKO 15/09/1987 St Petersburg Russian   Aleksandr Dmitriyevich PEREDRUK   3646/18 22/12/2017 Mariya Davidovna MOLDAVSKAYA 07/06/1970 St Petersburg Russian   Andrey Veniaminovich CHERTKOV   3649/18 12/12/2017 Dmitriy Sergeyevich MIKHEYEV 27/10/1972 St Petersburg Russian   Yevgeniya Yuryevna KULAKOVA   3785/18 18/12/2017 Pavel Mikhaylovich SOLOVYEV 21/06/1998 Orenburg Russian   Valentin Valentinovich PYSHKIN