CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 2021

.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 } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s30870011 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .s4A464CAB { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s358E56B { height:6.2pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s87680A70 { margin-left:11.67pt; text-align:center; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9589A2DE { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s946186CB { height:1.5pt } .sD8A582DF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s55601073 { height:21pt } .s794E44BE { height:6.75pt } .sD5AE2CCA { height:4.5pt } .s40EC1B84 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #7c7c7c; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3B3FE78A { height:19.9pt } Published on 3 May 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 75484/14 Dmitriy Ivanovich MONAKHOV against Russia and 8 other applications – (see appended list) communicated on 15 April 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS Relevant domestic law and practice Public events in the immediate vicinity of the residences of the President of the Russian Federation are prohibited (section 8(2(3)) of the Public Events Act - Federal Law no. 54-FZ of 18   August 2004). The procedure for holding public events in the vicinity of historic or cultural monuments is determined by the regional executive authorities, with due regard to the particular features of such sites and the requirements of this Act (section   8(3) of the Act). The procedure for holding public events in the Kremlin, Red Square and the Aleksandrovskiy Garden is established by the President of the Russian Federation (section   8(4)). Participants in public events are prohibited from hiding their faces, including by way of a mask or other items specially designed for impeding personal identification (section 6(4) of the Public Events Act). According to Presidential Decree no.   806 of 29   July 1992, a special permission from the President, based on a report from his Office and his security service, are required for holding a public event in the Kremlin or in Red Square. COMPLAINTS All of the applicants complain, referring to Articles   10 and/or 11 of the Convention, that their convictions for staging solo demonstrations and, where relevant, their arrest and detention in connection with those demonstrations breached their right to freedom of assembly and/or freedom of expression. Some of them argue that the restriction was unlawful, notably as the authorities had been unable to provide documents to prove that the places where the applicants had staged demonstrations had been in the immediate vicinity of the President’s residence; and all of the applicants submit that the interference was disproportionate. The applicants in cases nos.   71000/16 and 31947/17 complain under the above Convention provisions of their conviction for wearing masks depicting President Putin. The applicants’ other complaints are summarised in the relevant part of the Appendix. COMMON QUESTIONS Do the circumstances of each case (where relevant, 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 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article   11 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, and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§   431-42, 7 February 2017)? In particular, (a)     In all cases, were the relevant procedures, including the precise geographical scope of the restrictions, on holding public events at the relevant locations clear and accessible to the public? What is the justification for the ban on holding public events at the locations chosen by the applicants? The Government are requested to provide documents establishing the perimeter of the zone in the vicinity of the Kremlin in which holding public events was prohibited at the relevant time; as well as information on the legislative history of the relevant statutory ban. Were the locations chosen by the applicants within the restricted perimeter? (b)     In cases nos.   71000/16 (episodes of 13 and 18   March 2016 and 5   October 2016) and 31947/17 , what was the legitimate aim of prohibiting the use of masks or other items covering the face in the case of a solo demonstration? When convicting the applicants for wearing masks, did the domestic courts assess whether wearing the masks had constituted a form of expression protected by Article   10 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     In case no.   71000/16, were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the police station from 13 to 14   October 2016 compatible with Article   3 of the Convention? Did he 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?   2.     In cases nos.   71000/16, 31947/17, 82627/17, 54935/18 and 31228/20 , has there been 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)?   3.     In all cases except the applications nos.   75484/14 and 11402/20: as regards each applicants’ 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)? 4.     In case no.   71000/16 (5 th episode), was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing at the hearing of 14   October 2016, as required by Article 6 §   3   (c) of the Convention? 5.     In all cases except the applications nos.   75484/14, 1299/20 and   11402/20, were the applicants able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article   6   §   3   (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100 ‑ 31, ECHR 2015)? 6.     In case no.   82627/17 , the parties are invited to provide a complete copy of the appeal judgment of 31   May 2017.     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   10 of the Convention in the light of Article   11     No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Nationality Date of solo demonstration   Details Conviction, sanction First- instance and final judgments’ dates Other complaints   75484/14   27/11/2014 Dmitriy Ivanovich MONAKHOV 1983 Moscow   Represented by Ilnur Ilgizovich SHARAPOV   28/08/2014 (erroneously cited in the application form as 12/08/2014)   1, Manezhnaya Square, near the Voskresenskiye Gate   Strolling and talking, expressing his protest against Russian authorities’ actions in Ukraine   Conviction under Article 19.3   §   1 of the CAO (failure to comply with lawful orders of the police officers)   15 days’ administrative detention     28/08/2014   01/09/2014 None   50917/15   08/10/2015 Aleksey Viktorovich BOCHKAREV 1991 Moscow   Represented by MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre   08/08/2014   1a, Manezhnaya Square   Holding a placard Shouting slogans Conviction under Article 20.2   §5 of CAO (breach of the procedure for the conduct of public events)   Fine of RUB   15,000 11/12/2014   08/04/2015 Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted     71000/16   16/11/2016   Roman Petrovich ROSLOVTSEV 1979 Moscow   Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO       13/03/2016   Aleksandrovskiy Garden   Wearing a mask, Holding a placard Conviction under Article 20.2   §5 of CAO   Fine of RUB   10,000 22/03/2016   24/06/2016 Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification   Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) - failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted 18/03/2016   Red Square   Wearing a mask   Conviction under Article 20.1   §1 of CAO (petty hooliganism)   Fine of RUB   500 10/05/2016   20/06/2016 Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification   Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted 27/09/2016   Red Square   Holding a placard   Conviction under Article 20.2   §8 of CAO (repeated breach of conduct of public events)   Fine of RUB   300,000 24/11/2016   04/04/2017 Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification   Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted 05/10/2016   Red Square   Wearing a mask, holding a placard Conviction under Article 20.2   §   8 of CAO (repeated breach of conduct of public events)   Fine of RUB   300,000 08/11/2016   04/04/2017   Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification   Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted 13/10/2016   Red Square Holding a placard Conviction under Article 20.2   §   8 of CAO (repeated breach of conduct of public events)   20   days’ administrative detention 14/10/2016   18/10/2016 Articles   3 and 13 – inadequate conditions of detention at the police station between 13 and 14   October 2016, lack of an effective remedy Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification, administrative arrest on 13-14   October 2016   Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   Art. 6   §§   1 and   3   (c) – lack of legal representation at the first instance   Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted     31949/17   14/01/2017 Roman Petrovich ROSLOVTSEV 1979 Moscow   Aleksandr Anatolyevich FERENETS 1971 Moscow   Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO   30/04/2016 Both intended to stage demonstrations in Red Square on a rotation basis   Mr Roslovtsev: Wearing a mask, carrying a scrolled placard   Mr Ferenets: Wearing a mask Wearing a T-shirt with a slogan printed thereon Mr Roslovtsev: arrested when approaching the Red Square and was unable to stage the demonstration   Mr Ferenets: Staged his demonstration   Both applicants: Conviction under Article 20.2   §5 of CAO   Fine of RUB   10,000 ( Mr   Ferenets ) and RUB 20,000 ( Mr   Roslovtsev )   Mr Roslovtsev: 22/06/2016   28/09/2016   Mr Ferenets: 18/05/16   02/09/2016   Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification   Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted   82627/17   30/11/2017 Andrey Igorevich KISELEV 1992 Gus Khrustalnyy   23/03/2017   Red Square   Holding a placard (allegedly ripped from his hands by the police) Conviction under Article 20.2   §5 of CAO)   Fine of RUB   10,000 05/04/2017   31/05/2017   Article 5§   1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification   Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted; as well as attesting witnesses   54935/18   10/11/2018 Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA 1949 Arlington   Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO   25/08/2017 1, Vasilyevskiy Spusk Sq., near the Saint Basil’s Cathedral   Conviction under Article   20.2   §   5 of the CAO   Fine of RUB   20,000. 06/03/2018   22/05/2018   Article 5 §1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification   Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   Article   6   §   3   (d) – failure to question in court the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based   1299/20   27/12/2020   ZVEREV Sergey Anatolyevich 1963 Moscow   Represented by Tatyana Segeyevna GLUSHKOVA   03/03/2019 Red Square   Holding a placard     Article   20.2   §   5 of the CAO   Fine of RUB   10,000   13/05/2019   28/06/2019 Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings     11402/20   18/02/2020 SOKOLOVSKIY Ruslan Gennadiyevich 1994 Shadrinsk   Represented by Svetlana Ivanovna SIDORKINA 24/06/2019   Red Square   Holding a placard Article   20.2   §   5 of the CAO   Fine of RUB   15,000   10/07/2019   22/08/2019 None     31228/20   02/07/2020   Olga Anatolyevna NAZARENKO 1975 Ivanovo   Represented by Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO   19/10/2019   Red Square Conviction under Article 20.2   §   5 of the CAO   Fine of RUB   10,000 13/11/2019   12/02/2020   Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification, detention for more than 3 hours   Article   6   §   1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings   Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) – failure to question in court the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based