CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2020

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 24 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51118/16 Ivan Andreyevich NEPOMNYASHCHIKH against Russia lodged on 26 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction for acts of mass disorder and violence against the police, offences under Articles 212 §   2 and 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code, during the public event at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article   10 §   2?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article   11 § 2 (see   Yaroslav   Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 166-183, 4   October 2016)?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?