CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 12 September 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 31261/19 Konstantin Vladimirovich VINOKUR against Russia lodged on 25 May 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant who, at the age of 13, reposted a three-minute rock music video to the newsfeed of his social networking account. A few years later a Russian court pronounced the rock song to be extremist material. In 2018, the applicant was found guilty of spreading extremist material, in the proceedings in which the prosecutor was not present, and sentenced to a fine (final decision: Voronezh Regional Court, 26 November 2018). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the Russian courts apply the standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they take into account the context in which the publication was made and identify the legitimate aim of the interference? Did they consider the way in which the applicant should have become aware that the song had been declared extremist? Did they consider the proportionality of the sanction and the issue whether a warning or another, less intrusive measure could have been sufficient to achieve the desired dissuasive effect?   2.     As regards the prosecutor’s absence from the proceedings against the applicant, was it compatible with the principle of impartiality enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention that the trial court took over the functions of the prosecution (compare Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 51-84, 20   September 2016)?