CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 December 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9891/15 Mikhail Yuryevich KRAYNOV against Russia lodged on 9 February 2015 communicated on 23 November 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns dismissal of a police officer after he made public statements alluding to corruption in the police during his election campaign (for the duration of which he was suspended from his official functions). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and   11 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the criteria for assessing the proportionality of the interference under Article 10 of the Convention as set out in the Court’s case-law (see, in particular, Heinisch v. Germany , no. 28274/08, ECHR   2011 (extracts); Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, ECHR 2008; and Kudeshkina v. Russia , no. 29492/05, 26 February 2009): -     Was the information disclosed by the applicant of public interest? -     Were there effective alternative channels for making the disclosure, obtaining an internal clarification of the allegations and remedying the alleged wrongdoing available to the applicant? -     Did the applicant verify, to the extent permitted by the circumstances, that the disclosed information was accurate and reliable? -     Did the applicant act in good faith and in the belief that the information was true, that it was in the public interest to disclose it and that no other, more discreet means of remedying the alleged wrongdoing was available to him? -     Did the interest of the public in having the information revealed outweigh the damage suffered by the employer as a result of the disclosure or vice versa? -     Has the severity of the sanction imposed on the applicant and the chilling effect it may have on other policemen, or in the public service sector more broadly, been sufficiently taken into consideration?