CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 2 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   26009/18 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KREPKIN against Russia and 5 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 7 November 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 11 of the Convention relating to disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     26009/18* 22/05/2018 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KREPKIN 1984   Ilnur Ilgizovich Sharapov Moscow Opposition rally   Moscow   26/03/2017   article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years of imprisonment Moscow City Court 26/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - unfair criminal proceedings (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos.   2653/13 and 60980/14, §   182, 4   October 2016)       14154/20 05/03/2020 Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich KOVALENKO 1971   Ilnur Ilgizovich Sharapov Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years and 6   months of imprisonment Moscow City Court 17/10/2019 Art. 6 (3) (b) - adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence - the motion of the defence to adjourn the hearing for several days after the examination of evidence was dismissed, the applicant and his lawyer were given 20   min. to prepare their pleadings (see Yaroslav Belousov v.   Russia , nos.   2653/13 and 60980/14, §   152, 4 October 2016);   Art. 6 (3) (c) - inability to have confidential consultations with a lawyer during the trial, because of a glass compartment (ibid, §   153)       18392/20* 26/03/2020 Kirill Sergeyevich ZHUKOV 1990   Svetlana Nikolayevna Bayturina Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma   Moscow   20/07/2019 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years of imprisonment Moscow City Court 09/10/2019 Art. 6 (1) – fair hearing in criminal proceedings: refusal to examine evidence; contradictory statements by witnesses in the absence of proper assessment by the courts;   Art. 6 (3) (b) - adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence – use of the glass cabin in the courtroom; videoconference on appeal (ibid, §§ 152-53)       34249/20 30/06/2020 Pavel Gennadyevich USTINOV 1995     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma   Moscow   03/08/2019   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 318 (2) of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years and 6   months of imprisonment Moscow City Court 30/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - fair hearing in criminal proceedings - the applicant complains about the domestic courts’ failure to examine his argument that the incident was caused by the actions of the officers (ibid, §§ 152-53)         35664/20* 29/07/2020 Maksim Alekseyevich MARTINTSOV 1993   Svetlana Nikolayevna Bayturina Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma   Moscow   06/06/2019 Article 318 (1) of the Criminal Code - use of force against representatives of the State 2 years and 6   months of imprisonment Moscow City Court 31/01/2020 Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (b) - unfair trial due to the lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – the applicant alleged that his confinement in a glass cage had impeded communication with his lawyer in confidential conditions due to the presence of the bailiffs, and the lack of confidentiality infringed his right to a fair trial. Invoking Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), he complained of the tight schedule of hearings and of not having had enough time or the necessary facilities to prepare his defence ( Yaroslav Belousov , cited above, §§ 139-54). He further complained of restrictions on his right to consult the relevant documents in his criminal case file and that he had a total of only 7 hours to consult the documents.       50241/22* 13/10/2022 Olga Valeriyevna BENDAS 1985   Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya Strasbourg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Moscow   23/01/2021 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 2 years of imprisonment Supreme Court of Russia 16/06/2022 Art. 6 (1) - fair hearing in criminal proceedings - During the trial, on 29/04/2021, the applicant found out that there was a video of the event recorded by the police officers’ body cameras, which had not been examined by the investigation, and which proved that she had falsely confessed to the crime. The court rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s request to examine this evidence and sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment.