CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s3635F015 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sB9E62D8E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sB9D564EC { height:72.1pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4D2119D1 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE8E5B5D4 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s75C60776 { height:52.8pt } .s421DEF82 { border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4E3586E8 { border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s626F1882 { border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .sEF412FE0 { height:112.95pt } .s811368D0 { border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF4233910 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s221D9034 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s9BC8134A { border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA8D70776 { height:56.5pt } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s42855D7A { height:27.65pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .s9D2C1B2F { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F43D88E { height:66.35pt } .s9845263B { height:20.6pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s853364EC { height:75.6pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s99517AEC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s581A4627 { height:61.4pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse }   Communicated on 17 November 2020 Published on 7 December 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 54829/12 Irina Viktorovna VINOGRADOVA and Others against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details are set out in the Appendixes. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants’ solo demonstrations and administrative-offence proceedings On different dates, the applicants listed in Appendix   I staged solo demonstrations in Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic. In each case, ten to thirty minutes after the beginning of the demonstrations, police ordered the applicants to stop the demonstrations because they were being held in the vicinity of either the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic or the Syktyvkar Town Court. Each applicant was taken to a police station and charged there with various breaches of the established procedure for the conduct of public events, offences under Article   20.2 of the Administrative Offences Code (“the CAO”), for demonstration in the vicinity of the respective courts’ buildings in breach of section   8(2) of the of the Public Events Act. In some cases, a record of the applicants’ arrest was compiled. The applicants remained at the police station from one to three hours and then were allowed to leave. Mr Drokin (application no.   54225/14) staged his solo demonstration in the vicinity of a district court in Tver. He was able to terminate his demonstration. On the dates listed in the Appendixes   I and II domestic courts convicted the applicants of administrative offences (Article   20.2   §§2 or 5 of the CAO) and sentenced them to fines in the amounts specified in the Appendixes. In case no.   70240/14 the Syktyvkar Town Court discontinued the proceedings on appeal, for the absence of the elements of an administrative offence in the applicant’s actions. In all other cases on the dates listed below the domestic courts upheld the conviction in the final instance. Decisions to discontinue the administrative offence proceedings and compensation proceedings in four cases In several cases listed in Appendix   I the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic set aside the convictions, quashed the relevant judgments and discontinued the administrative proceedings against the applicants for the absence of the elements of administrative offence in their actions. In each case, the Presidium found that the authorities had failed to submit evidence that the place where an applicant had stood was assigned to the territory of either the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic or the Syktyvkar Town Court under the applicable laws and regulations. The applicants in those cases and in case no.   70240/14 sued the Ministry of Finance for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by both a violation of their right to freedom of expression and by unlawful deprivation of liberty. On various dates listed in Appendix   I domestic courts dismissed their claims, having found no unlawfulness in the authorities’ actions. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that by ending their solo demonstrations and, in most of the cases, taking them to the police stations and imposing administrative sanctions the authorities acted in breach of Articles   10 and 11 of the Convention, as the authorities’ actions did not have any basis in the domestic law, and as in each case the interference was disproportionate. The applicants in cases nos.   54829/12 (the third applicant in the second set of proceedings), 70240/14, 58468/17 and 11799/18 complain under Article   5 §   1 of the Convention that their arrests were unlawful and arbitrary. The applicants in cases nos.   54829/12 (the third applicant Ms Sedova in the second set of proceedings), 70240/14, 72147/16, 58468/17 and   11799/18 complain under Article   6§   1 of the Convention that, owing to the lack of a prosecuting party, the courts took on the role of the prosecution. COMMON QUESTIONS Do the circumstances of each case disclose an “interference” under Article   10 §   1 or Article   11   §   1 of the Convention? If so, was this interference prescribed by law, shown to pursue a legitimate aim and “necessary in a democratic society” (see Novikova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§   106-225, 26 April 2016; and, in so far as relevant, Kablis v. Russia , nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§   50-59, 30   April 2019, with further references )? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     In cases nos.   54829/12 (the third applicant Ms Sedova in the second set of proceedings), 70240/14, 58468/17 and 11799/18, was there a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article   5 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ escorting to the police station and arrest (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no.   76204/11, §§   89 ‑ 98, 4   December 2014)?   2.     In cases nos.   54829/12 (complaint by the third applicant Ms Sedova in the second set of proceedings), 70240/14, 72147/16, 58468/17 and   11799/18, were the courts which dealt with the applicants’ cases impartial, as required by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (see Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§   38-85, 20 September 2016)?   APPENDIX I List of applications raising complaints under Article   10 in the light of Article   11 of the Convention Restriction based on a regional ban on holding of public events in Stefanovskaya Square of Syktyvkar No. Application no. Lodged on   Applicant name date of birth place of residence   Represented by Date of public event   Restrictions applied Domestic decision (type of procedure) Date Court Supervisory-review proceedings Date, court, outcome (where relevant) Judgments in the compensation proceedings, final instance (where relevant)   54829/12   08/08/2012   Irina Viktorovna VINOGRADOVA 1971 Syktyvkar   Represented by: Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 30/09/2011 10.25-10.50   a.m.   Initially, conviction of an administrative offence, Article   20.2§   2 of the CAO, fine of 500   Russian roubles (RUB) Administrative offence proceedings (conviction) 29/11/2011 16/02/2012 (final) Syktyvkar Town Court 13/06/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   03/10/2013 Syktyvkar Town Court   16/12/2013 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   No information on any subsequent proceedings Aleksandr Fedorovich SHCHIGOLEV 1961 Syktyvkar   Represented by: Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 14/10/2011 5.25-5.40   p.m.   Conviction of an administrative offence, Article   20.2§   2 of the CAO, fine of RUB   500 Administrative offence proceedings (conviction) 19/12/2011 07/03/2012 (final) Syktyvkar Town Court   11/06/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 06/12/2013 Syktyvkar Town Court   13/02/2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   05/06/2014 1 st cassation appeal rejected (same court)   11/07/2014 2 nd cassation appeal rejected Supreme Court of Russia Marina Sergeyevna SEDOVA 1988 Syktyvkar   Represented by: Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK (1 st application form)   Aleksey Nikolayevich LAPTEV (2 nd application form) 4/10/2011 12.50a.m. – 1   p.m.   Initially, conviction of an administrative offence, Article   20.2§   5 of the CAO, fine of RUB   500 – conviction set aside, proceedings discontinued by way of the supervisory-review proceedings Administrative offence proceedings (conviction) 05/12/2011 08/02/2012 (final) Syktyvkar Town Court 24/05/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 06/12/2013 Sytkyvkar Town Court   13/02/2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   05/06/2014 1 st cassation appeal rejected (same court)   11/07/2014 2 nd cassation appeal rejected Supreme Court of Russia 07/12/2016 1.30-1.45   p.m. Conviction of an administrative offence, Article   20.2§   5of the CAO Fine of RUB   5,000 Administrative offence proceedings 01/03/2017 12/04/2017 (final) Supreme Court of the Komi Republic       57471/12   09/08/2012 1)     Aleksandr Borisovich OSTROVSKIY 1964 – 20/03/2014 Kfar Yona Russian   After the applicant’s death, his daughter expressed a wish to maintain the case:   Yelena Aleksandrovna OSTROVSKAYA 1993 Kfar Yona Russian, Israeli 05/10/2011 4.40-4.50   p.m.     Initially, conviction under Article   20.2§   2 of the CAO, fine of RUB   500– conviction set aside, proceedings discontinued by way of the supervisory-review proceedings initiated upon the applicant’s complaint Administrative offence proceedings (conviction) 01/12/2011 09/02/2012 Syktyvkar Town Court 19/07/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   15/01/2014 Sytkyvkar Town Court   14/04/2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   2)     Irina Petrovna VIGOVSKAYA 1965 Syktyvkar   All applicants represented by: Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 19/10/2011 9.25-9.40   a.m.   Conviction of an administrative offence, Article   20.2§   2 of the CAO, fine of RUB   1,000 29/11/2011 09/02/2012 (final) Syktyvkar Town Court     n/a   59778/12   27/08/2012 Semen Alekseyevich TERESHONKOV 1982 Syktyvkar   25/10/2011 4.50-4.52   p.m   Initially, Conviction under Article   20.2§   2 of the CAO, fine of RUB   500 –conviction subsequently set aside, proceedings discontinued Administrative offence proceedings 06/12/2011 27/02/2012 (final) Sytkyvkar Town Court   14/06/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   19/05/2015 Sytkyvkar Town Court   30/07/2015 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   04/12/2015 1 st cassation appeal rejected (same court)   29/01/2016 2 nd cassation appeal rejected Supreme Court of Russia Vera Petrovna TERESHONKOVA 1958 Syktyvkar   Represented by: Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 26/10/2011 4.40-4.50   Initially, Conviction under Article   20.2§   2 of the CAO, fine of RUB   500 –conviction subsequently set aside, proceedings discontinued Administrative offence proceedings 06/12/2011 05/04/2012 (final) Sytkyvkar Town Court 13/06/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   6320/13   09/08/2012   Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 1976 Syktyvkar 21/09/2011 11.30-11.50   a.m. Initially, conviction of an administrative offence, Article   20.2   §   2 of the CAO, fine of RUB   500 –subsequently quashed in the supervisory-review proceedings Administrative offence proceedings 17/11/2011 09/02/2012 (final) Syktyvkar Town Court 24/05/2013 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 19/05/2015 Sytkyvkar Town Court   30/07/2015 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   04/12/2015 1 st cassation appeal rejected (same court)   29/01/2016 2 nd cassation appeal rejected Supreme Court of Russia   70240/14   21/10/2014 Erikh Erikhovich VILSON 1988 Syktyvkar   Represented by: Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 11/06/2013 5-5.10   p.m.   Initially, an administrative-offence record complied (Article   20.2   §   5 of the CAO); proceedings subsequently discontinued Administrative offence record 11/06/2013   Administrative offence proceedings: discontinued (lack of corpus delicti)   16/08/2013 (final) Syktyvkar Town Court   14/01/2014 Syktyvkar Town Court   21/04/2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic     72147/16   18/11/2016 Igor Valentinovich SAZHIN 1963 Syktyvkar   Represented by: Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 10/03/2016 4.40   p.m.   Conviction under Article   20.2   §   5of the CAO Fine of RUB   10,000 Administrative offence proceedings 08/04/2016 18/05/2016 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic         58468/17   01/08/2017 Nina Vasilyevna ANANINA 1984 Syktyvkar   Represented by: Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK   Aleksey Nikolayevich LAPTEV 22/10/2016 11   a.m.   Conviction under Article   20.2§   5of the CAO, fine of RUB   10.000 Administrative offence proceedings 28/11/2016 01/02/2017 (final) Supreme Court of the Komi Republic         11799/18   30/11/2017 Darya Vladimirovna CHERNYSHEVA 1991 Sytyvkar   Represented by: Ernest Aleksandrovich MEZAK 07/12/2016 2   p.m.   Conviction under Article   20.2§   5of the CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 Administrative offence proceedings 30/03/2017 31/05/2017 (final) Supreme Court of the Komi Republic           APPENDIX   II List of applications raising complaints under Article   10 in the light of Article   11 of the Convention   Restrictions based on a general ban on holding public events in the vicinity of courts’ buildings (section   8   §   2 of the Public Events Act)   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth Place of residence   Public event Restrictions applied Domestic decision (type of procedure) Date Name of the court which issued a final decision   54225/14   15/07/2014 Aleksey Aleksandrovich DROKIN 1954 Krasnoyarsk 23/04/2013 12   a.m.-3   p.m. Krasnoyarsk In front of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk   Applicant holding a poster, protesting against allegedly unfair outcome of a civil dispute Conviction of an administrative offence, Article   20.2 of the CAO (the applicant considered an organiser of the solo demonstration) fine of RUB   10,000 Administrative offence proceedings 08/11/2013 16/01/2014 (appeal instance) Krasnoyarsk Regional Court   04/04/2014 the applicant’s request for supervisory-review rejected by the Deputy President of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court