CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { 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 } .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 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s459B6D70 { height:48.95pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .s96FB263B { height:20.8pt } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 26 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 19880/18 Gayane Levonovna ARUTYUNYAN against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 8 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants distributed leaflets in support of Mr A. Navalnyy’s intention to run for the President of Russia. Each of them did so separately from the others, by positioning him- or herself at different stations of the Moscow metro and in various locations in Tyumen. All applicants but Mr   Gerasimov (who was able to complete his demonstration) were arrested, escorted to police stations for drawing up administrative-offence records and then released. The domestic courts considered that, together with other volunteers, the applicants had taken part in one and common act of group picketing in Moscow or in Tyumen which had not been notified to a competent local authority as required by the Public Events Act. In all cases concerning the events in Moscow the courts noted in addition that the applicants had acted in breach of Presidential Decree no.   202 of 9   May 2017 introducing temporary restrictions on holding public events during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup. Each applicant was convicted under Article   20.2 §   5 of the Code of Administrative Offences for a failure to notify a public event and sentenced to an administrative fine. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the circumstances of each case (where relevant, the termination of the applicants’ actions, escorting to a police station, detention there and prosecution under the Code of Administrative Offences) disclose an “interference” under Article10 or Article 11 of the Convention? Was the interference “prescribed by law”, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society” (see, in so far as relevant, Novikova and   Others v.   Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4   others, §§   222-25, 26 April 2016)? In particular: (a)     Was it foreseeable that each applicant’s actions would be classified as a common act of picketing within the meaning of the Public Events Act, given that the applicants distributed leaflets at a considerable distance from other persons and, where relevant, on different dates? What was the target object being picketed? (b)     In so far as the domestic courts in cases listed in Appendix   I referred to the Presidential Decree no.   202 of 9   May 2017, did the domestic legal provisions requiring a prior notification for solo demonstrations during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup meet the “quality of law” requirements? What was the justification for the restrictions on holding public events unrelated to the sport competitions, in particular, in case of solo demonstrations? (c)     In each case, what legitimate aim was pursued by prosecuting on account of the conduct by one person situated at a considerable distance from other persons (compare with Novikova and Others , cited above, §§   144-47)? Was the interference proportionate to the aim pursued? Did the domestic courts adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for the “interference” with freedom of expression/assembly, and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts?   2.     In cases nos.   19880/18, 22029/18, 27965/18, 48916/18, 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.     As regards each applicants’ trial in cases nos.   19880/18 and 20504/18 (first-instance proceedings), as well as nos. 27965/18 and 24567/18 (proceedings at two levels of jurisdiction), 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 No. Application no.   Lodged on Applicant name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality   Represented by Solo demonstration (date, place)   Final judgment (date, court)   19880/18   19/04/2018 Gayane Levonovna ARUTYUNYAN 1996 Moscow Russian   Represented by: Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV 08/07/2017 Andropova Av. Moscow   02/11/2017 Moscow City Court       22029/18   23/04/2018   Yanis Aleksandrovich OBLAKOV 1996 Moscow Russian   Represented by: Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV   08/07/2017 Moscow   08/11/2017 Moscow City Court       23385/18   04/05/2018 Arseniy Mikhaylovich POPOV 1995 Tarasovka Russian   Represented by: Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV   08/07/2017 Moscow     10/11/2017 Moscow City Court       27965/18   04/06/2018 Oleg Andreyevich KARELOV 1984 Moscow Russian   Represented by: Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV   9/07/2017 Moscow   04/12/2017 Moscow City Court     48916/18   05/10/2018 Mikhail Vasilyevich SHCHERBAKOV 1994 Moscow Russian   Represented by: Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV 08/07/2017 Moscow   20/04/2018 Moscow City Court     20504/18   12/04/2018 Mikhail Mikhaylovich GERASIMOV 1986 Tyumen Russian   Represented by: Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV   08/07/2017 Tyumen   30/10/2017 Tyumen Regional Court     24567/18   15/05/2018 Oleg Borisovich KORZHANOV 1987 Bolshiye Akiyary, Tyumen Region Russian   Represented by: Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV 09/07/2017 Tyumen   15/11/2017 Tyumen Regional Court