CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s95D84CD6 { height:16pt } .sC2958733 { border: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 } .sECE322C2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.65pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sDAF6D7B3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; 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 } .sD1B585C8 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDDA48E91 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sABE8089D { height:87.6pt } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9DDB1A3E { margin-left:11.67pt; text-align:center; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s35D7B1A2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s793E087D { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFDFF321F { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE31B4500 { height:37.8pt } .s21D5AF37 { border-top:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; 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 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s94184627 { height:63.8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s221D9034 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s358E569 { height:6.4pt } .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 } .s323F263B { height:27.7pt } .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 } .sD8D1073 { height:28pt } .s5111C6A6 { height:9.2pt } .sF66EE8B1 { height:46.4pt } .s50597860 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sF140E884 { height:89.75pt } .sEC838919 { height:3.5pt } .s42855D7A { height:27.65pt } .sDCA7E884 { height:84.55pt } .sD66FC070 { border-top:0.75pt solid #7f7f7f; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s26CDE78A { height:13.5pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   Communicated on 16 November 2020 Published on 7 December 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8793/17 Aleksandr Anatolyevich FERENETS against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details are set out in the Appendix. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants’ solo demonstrations, arrest and detention In each case, the applicants and several other persons, in rotation, staged solo demonstrations at various locations in Moscow, on the dates specified in the Appendix. Each of them submitted that no other persons participated in similar demonstrations around them at the same time as the applicants. In some cases, other people were standing not far from the applicants, holding no posters, waiting for their turn to stage their solo demonstrations or waiting for the applicants to terminate their solo pickets. In each case, the police considered that the above amounted to a group event in the form of a picket requiring prior notification of the competent authority. All applicants were arrested by police officers and taken to various police stations of Moscow, where the police officers recorded their administrative escorting and administrative arrest for the purpose of compiling an administrative-offence record. At the police stations each applicant was charged with a breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events under Article   20.2   §§   2, 5 or 8 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”), as specified in the Appendix. All applicants disagreed, maintaining that they had staged solo demonstrations. The applicants in case no.   83510/17 remained at the police station for approximately 43   hours, and then were transferred to the domestic court and released after the examination of their cases. All other applicants spent approximately three hours at the police stations and were then released. On the dates specified in the Appendix domestic courts examined the applicants’ cases in the absence of a prosecuting party and convicted the applicants under various sub-sections of Article   20.2 of the CAO of participating in an event “with a group of people” without prior notification and sentenced them to fines. The courts relied on the administrative records, the reports and explanations of the police officers, as well as letters from the Moscow Government or the Prefecture of Moscow to the effect that no notification of any public event had been received on the relevant dates. In all cases the defence asked to call as witnesses the police officers who, had produced reports on the circumstances of the case, and/or had recorded the applicants’ administrative escorting and arrest, and/or had drawn up administrative-offence records. In all cases but in case of Ms Zakharova (no.   40428/18) the courts rejected the requests. In cases of all applicants but Ms Tarvid, on the dates specified in the Appendix the Moscow City Court heard the cases in the absence of the prosecuting party and upheld the convictions on appeal. The appeal court’s findings and subsequent developments in case of Ms   Tarvid (applications no.   83526/17 and 40428/18) In case no.   83526/17 the Moscow City Court quashed the first-instance court’s decision on appeal and discontinued the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant, as the administrative offence record had been drawn up in her absence, in breach of the CAO requirements. In case no.   40428/18 the Moscow City Court quashed the first-instance court’s decision as the lower court had examined the case in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 28   February 2018 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow examined the case afresh. The first-instance court found, in particular, that different parts of the administrative offence record in respect of Ms Tarvid had been drawn up and signed by different persons, in breach of the CAO requirements. Accordingly, the court declared the administrative-offence record inadmissible evidence and discontinued the proceedings, for the absence of the event of an administrative offence in the applicant’s actions. The applicant brought two separate sets of civil proceedings for compensation of non-pecuniary damage resulting from two counts of alleged violations of her rights guaranteed by Articles   5 and 11 of the Convention. By the time of lodging of her applications with the Court, the civil cases were pending before domestic courts. No updates were provided. Conditions of the applicants’ detention in case no.   83510/17 After their arrest at 4.00   p.m. on 6   May 2017 and charges being brought, both applicants in case no.   83510/17 were placed in a cell at Zamoskvoretskiy police station, where they remained until 10   a.m. on 8   May 2017. Their personal belongings, including the first applicant’s pectoral cross, were seized from them on admission to the cell. The cell measured about 2 sq. m. and housed two inmates. It was poorly lit, had a concrete floor, no window, no ventilation, no sanitary equipment and no furniture except for a bench. The artificial light was never switched off disturbing the applicants’ sleep. Access to the toilet facilities was restricted; there was no toilet paper at the sanitary facilities. The applicants were not provided with any bedding, mattress, food or drinking water and were not allowed to go outdoors for a walk. On 8   May 2017 they were transferred to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court. They were not provided with food and water at the court. Relevant domestic law and practice For a summary of relevant domestic law provisions and practice concerning regulations relating to the conduct of public events, liability for breaches committed during such events, and administrative escort and arrest, see Lashmankin and Others , nos.   57818/09 and 14   others, §§   216 ‑ 312, 7   February 2017, and Novikova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, §§   47-84, 26   April 2016. COMPLAINTS The applicants in case no.   83510/17 complain under Article   3 of the Convention about the conditions of their detention on 6-8   May 2017 in the police station and in the District Court building and under Article   13 about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their grievance under Article   3. All the applicants complain under Article   5   §   1 that their administrative escorting and arrest were unlawful and disproportionate. The applicants in case no.   83510/17 complain under the same provision that their administrative arrest on 6-8   May 2017 had no legal basis and constituted an unreasonable and disproportionate measure. The applicants in all cases (including the second and the third applicant in case no.   83526/17 and the second applicant in case no.   40428/18) complain under Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (d) of the Convention that, owing to the lack of a prosecuting party, the first-instance and the appeal courts took on the role of the prosecution. They submit that the courts were not impartial and that they rejected nearly all the requests and applications lodged by the defence, including, in cases nos.   20017/17 and 64244/17, the requests to call defence witnesses. All of the applicants complain under Article   6   §   3(d) that they were unable to examine the police officers responsible for their arrest and detention. All of the applicants further complain that by terminating the applicants’ solo demonstrations and taking them to the police station the authorities acted in breach of Articles   10 (applications nos.   20017/17, 43150/17 and   64244/17) and 11 of the Convention (all applicants) and, in particular, that the authorities’ actions did not have any basis in the domestic law. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     In each case, was there a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article   5 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ escorting to the police stations and arrests (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no.   76204/11, §§   89-98, 4   December 2014)?   2.     As regards each applicant’s trial, 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)?   3.     Do the circumstances of each case (the termination of a demonstration, escorting to the police station, detention there and prosecution under the Code of Administrative Offences) disclose an “interference” under Article   10   §   1 or Article   11   §   1 of the Convention? Was the interference “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” (see Novikova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4   others, §§   222-25, 26 April 2016,)? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     Applications nos.   8793/17, 9576/17, 20017/17, 43150/17, 64244/17, 79503/17, 83510/17 and 83526/17 (in so far as the complaints by Ms   Ryabikova and Ms Zakharova are concerned). Were the applicants able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article   6   §   3   (d) of the Convention, and, in cases nos.   20017/17 and 64244/17 , witnesses in favour of the applicants as requested by them (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100 ‑ 31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05 , §§ 139-49, 18 December 2018)?   2.     Application no.   83510/17. Were the conditions of the applicants’ detention in the police station from 6 to 8   May 2017 compatible with Article   3 of the Convention? Did they have an effective remedy for their complaint in respect of poor conditions of detention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3?   3.     Applications nos.   83526/17 and 40428/18. The parties are invited to inform the Court about the outcome of the civil proceedings brought by Ms   Tarvid and to submit copies of the relevant documents.   APPENDIX No. Application no.   Lodged on Applicant name year of birth place of residence Public event:   Location Date Details Administrative escorting and arrest Conviction Sanction Dates   8793/17   09/01/2017 Aleksandr Anatolyevich FERENETS 1971 Moscow   Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO 19/03/2016 1   Manezhnaya Square in Moscow   Solo demonstrations, together with several other persons, in rotation, to support Mr Ildar Dadin after his criminal conviction in late 2015   4.30-4.40   p.m. both applicants arrested by police officers, 10 minutes later taken to the Kitay ‑ Gorod District Police Department of Moscow.   Approximately three hours later both applicants were released Article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO   Each applicant: A fine of 10,000   Russian roubles (RUB) 24/05/2016 Tverskoy District Court     30/08/2016 (upheld on appeal)     20017/17   27/02/2017 Tatyana Dmitriyevna ILYUSHNIKOVA 1960 Vidnoye           04/05/2016 Tverskoy District Court   09/09/2016 (upheld on appeal)   9576/17   21/01/2017 Darya Olegovna YATSENKO 1990 Lyubertsy   Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO 5   April 2016 Shortly before 1.55   p.m in front of the State Duma in Moscow   A series of solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, to protest against corruption in the wake of the publication of the “Panama Papers”   1.55   p.m arrested by the police and taken to the Tverskoy District Police Department of Moscow.   At 5.30   p.m. the applicant was released. Article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO   A fine of RUB   10,000   06/06/2016 Tverskoy District Court   28/09/2016 (upheld on appeal)     43150/17   08/06/2017 Olga Yakovlevna SONINA 1950 Moscow 22   September 2016 21 Ilyinka Street in Moscow [1]   Solo demonstrations, in rotation, to protest against the introduction in the Russian Criminal Code of Article   212.1allowing for criminal prosecution for a repeated breach of the rules on public gatherings. 6.40   p.m. Both applicants arrested, ten minutes later taken to the Kitay ‑ Gorod District Police Department.   Both applicants: Article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO   Ms Sonina: A fine of RUB   10,000 05/10/2016 Tverskoy District Court   08/12/2016 (upheld on appeal)   64244/17   01/08/2017 Mariya Aleksandrovna RYABIKOVA 1974 Moscow     1)     At some point in the afternoon Ms   Ryabikova staged a solo demonstration, holding a poster. She finished her demonstration, took away the poster and went some distance from where she had been demonstrating.   2)     At 6.30   p.m Ms Sonina took her place to stage her solo demonstration. At 6.50   p.m. a police officer recorded their administrative arrest .   At 8.40   p.m. both applicants were released. Ms Ryabikova : A fine of RUB   20,000   The court applied an increased fine as Ms   Ryabikova has already been convicted for similar violations 05/10/2016 Tverskoy District Court   06/02/2017 (appeal)   79503/17   21/10/2017 Ildar Ildusovich DADIN 1982 Zheleznodorozhnyy   02/04/2017 4.30-4.50   p.m.   Solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, in front of the Moscow Department of the Interior Office (38, Petrovka St.), to protest against arrests and detention of participants of an anti-corruption manifestation   4.50   p.m. All the applicants arrested, taken to the Tverskoy District Police Department.   5   p.m. The applicants’ administrative arrest and escorting recorded, administrative-offence record compiled.   Shortly thereafter the applicants were released.   All the applicants: Article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO   A fine of RUB   15,000   02/05/2017 Tverskoy District Court   28/06/2017 (upheld on appeal) Yuliya Vladimirovna USPENSKAYA 1981 Sacramento A fine of RUB   10,000   02/05/2017 Tverskoy District Court   02/08/2017 (upheld on appeal)   Sergey Borisovich RYAPOLOV 1974 Moscow   Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO A fine of RUB   10,000   04/05/2017 Tverskoy District Court   16/08/2017 (upheld on appeal)   83510/17   23/10/2017 Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949 Arlington   06/05/2017 At some point before 4   p.m.   Solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, at the Bolotnaya Square in Moscow, to support participants of the public assembly at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6   May 2012 after their criminal conviction within the “Bolotnaya” case 4.00   p.m. Both applicants arrested, taken to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Police Department. The applicants’ administrative arrest and escorting recorded, administrative-offence record compiled (initially, under Article 20.2   §   8 of the CAO in respect of both of them) Both applicants placed in a temporary detention cell at the police station, remained there until 08/05/2017 Article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO   A fine of RUB   20,000   08/05/2017 Zamoskvoretskiy District Court     14/06/2017 (upheld on appeal)     Mariya Aleksandrovna RYABIKOVA 1974 Moscow   Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO Article 20.2   §   8 of the CAO     A fine of RUB   150,000   08/05/2017 Zamoskvoretskiy District Court   14/06/2017 (upheld on appeal)   83526/17   07/11/2017 Tatyana Grigoryevna TARVID 1953 Khotkovo   04/01/2017 At some point between 12   p.m. and 4.50   p.m. Federal Service for Execution of Sentences (FSIN)   Solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, to support Ildar Dadin and to protest against his ill-treatment in detention 4.50   p.m. All the applicants arrested, taken to the Tverskoy District Police Department.   The applicants’ administrative arrest and escorting recorded, administrative-offence record compiled   Shortly thereafter the applicants were released.   All the applicants: Article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO   Ms Tarvid : Initially, a fine of RUB   10,000; Then proceedings discontinued 04/04/2017 Zamoskvoretskiy District Court   20/06/2017 (final) Conviction quashed on appeal, proceedings discontinued Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949 Arlington Each applicant: A fine of RUB   15,000   04/04/2017 Zamoskvoretskiy District Court   14/07/2017 (final) Mariya Aleksandrovna RYABIKOVA 1974 Moscow   Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO 04/04/2017 Zamoskvoretskiy District Court   02/08/2017 (final)   40428/18   10/08/2018 Tatyana Grigoryevna TARVID 1953 Khotkovo 30/06/2017 Moscow Pushkinskaya Square   Solo demonstrations, held on a rotation basis, to support political prisoners in Russia 7.30   p.m. Both applicants arrested, taken to the Tverskoy District Police Department.   8.10   p.m. The applicants’ administrative arrest and escorting recorded, administrative-offence record compiled   10.15 p.m. both applicants released   Both applicants: Article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO Ms Tarvid: Initially, a fine of RUB   15,000; Then proceedings discontinued 10/07/2017 Tverskoy District Court   12/01/2018 Conviction quashed on appeal, case remitted 28/02/2018 (final) proceedings discontinued Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949 Arlington Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO Ms Zakharova: A fine of RUB   10,000 21/12/2017 Tverskoy District Court (full text issued on 25/12/2017)   20/03/2018 (final)   [1] The building identified as “the building used by the President of the Russian Federation’s Administration” by Ms Ryabikova, as “the Permanent Representation of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic in Moscow” by Ms Sonina.