CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 janvier 2019

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 21 January 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51427/18 Nikolay Sergeyevich GOSTEV against Russia lodged on 16 October 2018 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Nikolay Sergeyevich Gostev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Ms Y.Y. Ostrovskaya, a lawyer practising in Khimki, the Moscow Region. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant has been an employee of the Moscow Metro since 1992. In 2014 he became the president of a new trade union. In 2016 a number of technical accidents causing interruptions of the metro service took place. In April and July 2016 the trade union organised a demonstration and a number of solo pickets to attract the authorities’ and public attention to the safety issues of the metro service. Following another interruption of metro services allegedly due to short circuit, an internet media portal interviewed the applicant as a trade union president about safety of working conditions on the Moscow Metro. On 14   July 2016 the interview was published online. After a new interruption of services the applicant gave an interview to another internet media portal, which was posted on 16   September 2016. On 12   January 2017 the Moscow Metro issued the applicant with a reprimand in relation to his first interview on the grounds that, according to internal discipline rules, metro personnel are prohibited from direct communication with press without coordination with the employer’s press service. On 6   February 2017 the Moscow Metro reprimanded the applicant for the second interview and, given that it was his repeated transgression, dismissed him. The applicant challenged his dismissal before a court. On 26   June 2017 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow rejected his claims. The District Court found that the applicant had been aware about the internal discipline rules regarding communication with press, but still gave the interviews. It, thus, concluded that the dismissal had been lawful. The District Court further mentioned that the internal rules did not limit the applicant’s freedom of expression, but set procedure of its realisation. On 4   December 2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. On 21   February 2018 and 20   April 2018 his cassation complaints were also rejected. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention about prohibition of direct communication with press to all subway personnel and about his dismissal for giving interviews as the president of a trade union. The applicant also invokes Article 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference necessary and proportionate? Did the national courts assess the “proportionality” and “necessity in a democratic society” of the interference in the present case? (see, for instance, Bédat v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, 29 March 2016)?