CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 21 December 2017 and 27 August 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 78193/17 Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY and Petr Yuryevich OFITSEROV against Russia lodged on 27 October 2017   The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Do the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 relevant to the complaints in present case contain any express or implied restrictions that may form the subject of the Court’s examination under Article 18 of the Convention?   2.     If so, does the claim that the restriction(s) in question has(ve) been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the Convention constitute a fundamental aspect of the present case?   3.     Were the restrictions allegedly imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 6 and/or 7 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?