CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juin 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   Published on 5 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 44097/18 Denis Aleksandrovich MIKHAYLOV against Russia and 4 others – see appended list communicated on 17 June 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES St Petersburg City administration refused to approve Mr Litvin’s notice relating to a hybrid public event (a march followed by an assembly) to be held on 5 May 2018. He notified the administration that he would not hold that event. On 3 May 2018 he published a public message in his Twitter account: “On 5 May 2018 we go out for many reasons: for Telegram, against corruption and oligarchy and against violations of our rights and the Constitution”. On 5 May 2018 a protest rally called “He is not our Tsar” was held. The applicant participated in it, was arrested and sentenced to detention under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) on account of his participation in it. In separate proceedings, a court then held that he had been the organiser of that rally because he had engaged in “pre-event campaigning” on account of his Twitter post; that he had not obtained the administration’s approval for that event and that his campaigning had been unlawful and/or that he had unlawfully held that rally without the authority’s approval. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed, stating that he had already been convicted as a participant of the same event, that he had not called others to participate in it and that he had not been its organiser and thus could not be held liable with reference to the provisions of the CAO and the Public Events Act (PEA) concerning event organisers. Mr Mikhaylov was prosecuted under the CAO in relation to the same rally [1] and another one on 28 January 2018. In separate civil proceedings the courts ordered the applicants to pay jointly 44,700 Russian roubles (RUB; 597 euros (EUR)) in court fees and RUB 7,300,000 (EUR 97,570) on account of pecuniary damage caused by the rally on 5 May 2018, specifically damage to city lawns caused by unspecified people. It appears that the applicants paid the fines and a part of the civil-court award.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Application no.   44097/18: Having regard to the well-established case ‑ law (see Malofeyeva v.   Russia , no. 36673/04, 30 May 2013; Karelin v.   Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016; Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, 30 April 2019; and Martynyuk v.   Russia , no.   13764/15, 8 October 2019), have there been violations of Article 5 § 1 and Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention in respect of Mr   Mikhaylov in relation to the rally on 28   January 2018 (see the Annex for the relevant details)?   2.   Applications nos.   55512/18 and 38241/19: 2.1. Having regard to the well-established case-law (see above), have there been violations of Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention in respect of Mr Litvin in relation to the rally on 5 May 2018? 2.2. Was there a violation of Article 7 of the Convention? [2] In particular, was Mr Litvin convicted under Article   20.2 § 1   of the CAO on account of premature campaigning by an event organiser (sections   4 and 10 of the PEA) and/or on account of holding the event on 5   May 2018 without the competent authority’s approval (section 5 § 4 of the PEA)? Was it foreseeable that he would be held liable for either act, given the courts’   choice to classify him as the “organiser” of that rally because of his Twitter posts?   3.     Applications   nos.   38483/20 and 52031/20: 3.1.     Did Mr Litvin have an appeal hearing by an impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the press-releases issued by the Joint Press Office of St   Petersburg courts? 3.2. Has there been a violation of Article   11 of the Convention in respect of each applicant on account of the domestic courts’ decisions ordering them to pay for the damage caused by participants during the rally on 5 May 2018?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Lodged on Domestic proceedings Complaints Represented by 1.* 44097/18 Denis Aleksandrovich MIKHAYLOV 1996 Murino Russian 31/08/2018 “Voters’ strike” rally on 28/01/2018   Admin. transfer and arrest on 02/03/2018   02/03/2018 Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg (Art.20.2§8 CAO; 25 ‑ day detention); 07/03/2018 St   Petersburg City Court Art.5§1 – unlawful and arbitrary transfer and arrest until the evening on 02/03/2018 Art.6§§1+3(b)-(d) – no opportunity to examine Officers D., S., K. and defence witnesses; no adequate time to prepare the defence Art.6§1 – no public’s access to the trial hearing; no prosecuting party at the trial and appeal hearings Arts.10-11 – unlawful and disproportionate admin. transfer , admin. arrest and prosecution Aleksandr POMAZYEV 2.* 55512/18 Bogdan Gennadyevich LITVIN 1994 St Petersburg Russian 10/11/2018 “He is not our Tsar” rally on 05/05/2018 Admin. transfer and arrest on 05-06/05/2018 06/05/2018 District Court (Art.   19.3§1 CAO; 9-day detention); 10/05/18 City Court Art.6§1 – no prosecuting party at the trial and appeal hearings in the case under Art.19.3 CAO Art.   11 – admin. transfer and arrest procedures and prosecution in that case Viktor VOROBYEV 3.*   38241/19 04/07/2019 Same rally (see above) 31/01/2019 Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg (Art. 20.2§1 CAO; fine RUB 20,000); 29/03/2019 City Court Art.6§1 – no prosecuting party at court hearings Art.   6§3(d) – no opportunity to examine Anti ‑ extremism Unit Officer I. Art. 7§1 – unforeseeable interpretation and application of the concepts of “event organisation” and “event organiser” Arts.   10+11 – prosecution Aleksandr PEREDRUK   4. 38483/20 10/08/2020 Same rally (see above) 05/02/2019 Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg; 20/06/2019 City Court; then: for Litvin - 30/10/2019 City Court; 10/02/2020 Supreme Court of Russia for Mikhaylov – 20/02/2020 City Court; 07/08/2020 Supreme Court Art.6§1 (Litvin) – lack of impartiality of the appeal court in the civil case, on account of the press-releases issued by the Joint Press Office of St Petersburg courts Art.11 – order to pay for damage caused to city lawns and flowerbeds by unspecified people during the protest rally 5. 52031/20 Denis Aleksandrovich MIKHAYLOV 1996 Murino Russian 31/10/2020       [1] See Application no. 8672/19 communicated to the respondent Government in 2019 (complaints under Articles 6-7 and 10-11 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention). [2] See also communicated Application no. 8672/19 as regards Mr Mikhaylov.