CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 January 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 57250/11 Nail Abdulkhakovich MIKEYEV against Russia lodged on 21 August 2011 communicated on 9 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant wrote a text entitled “To the peoples and the henchmen over them”. On 11 October 2009 T. read it out during a public gathering, a traditional Tatar prayer. On 19 February 2010 a search and seizure were carried out at the applicant’s home. According to him, he was arrested and taken to a police station and remained there from 4.50 p.m. to 11.30 p.m.; he was then interviewed and made self-incriminating statements; no lawyer was present during the interview; lawyer B. came in around midnight and signed the interview record. The applicant was then allowed to leave the police station. It follows from the interview record (dated 20 February 2010) that the applicant was interviewed on that date from 7.05 p.m. to 9.30   p.m. in the presence of lawyer B.; that, replying to the investigator’s question, the applicant stated as follows: “I wrote the impugned text (the manifesto) in order to incite within our population enmity toward the Russian people; [because] the Tatar people dominate others. The Russian people are weak and ugly. Thus the manifesto contains a call to enmity toward the Russian-speaking population ...” The interview record bore the applicant’s signature and indicated that he had no comments to add. No arrest record was compiled on 19 or 20   February 2010 in respect of the applicant. It follows from the interview record dated 19 February 2010 that T. was interviewed on that date from 7 p.m. to 8.45 p.m., in the presence of lawyer   L. On 31   January 2011 the applicant was convicted under Article   282 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to a fine of 150,000 Russian roubles for disseminating, inter alia, the above-mentioned text inciting enmity and hatred toward and debasing the dignity of such groups as the Russian-speaking population and public officials. The court dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s arguments relating to the pre-trial statements made by him and T. without the benefit of legal assistance and, as to T., under duress. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.1.     Did the applicant have a fair trial in 2011 (see Rodionov v.   Russia , no.   9106/09, §§ 134-74, 11   December 2018)? Was there a violation of Article   6 of the Convention on account of the alleged questioning without legal assistance on 19   February 2010, the use of that interview record and the use of T.’s incriminating statements for convicting the applicant?   1.2.     The respondent Government are requested to submit any documents relevant to the applicant’s arrest and questioning at the police station, including the arrest record, logbooks, and any statements made in the domestic proceedings by lawyer B. and the investigator in relation to the arrest and legal assistance on 19 or 20   February 2010.   2.     Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s conviction for the text entitled “To the peoples and the henchmen over them”? Was that conviction “necessary in a democratic society” in pursuance of a legitimate aim such as the protection of such groups as “the Russian-speaking population” and “public officials”? Did the courts convincingly establish the applicant’s intention and purpose for disseminating that text, specifically incitement of others to engage in acts of enmity or hatred toward those groups or their members (see Perinçek v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 204-80, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?