Communicated on 7 February 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 48413/09
Andrey Anatolyevich NIKITIN against Russia
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern the criminal prosecutions and convictions of the applicants for their participation in the activity of the National Bolshevik Party, a political organisation declared extremist and banned in Russia, and for incitement to hatred (see Appendix).
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Were the acts/activity of the applicants and/or the activities and objectives of the National Bolshevik Party aimed at the destruction or limitation of rights and freedoms provided for in the Convention, within the meaning of Article 17?
If so, may they claim to enjoy the protection of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention (see Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, §§ 97-99 and 117‑25, ECHR 2003‑II; Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia, nos. 26261/05 and 26377/06, §§ 102-14, 14 March 2013; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, 16 November 2004, and W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, 2 September 2004)?
The parties are invited to submit a copy of the National Bolshevik Party’s articles of association (устав), its political programme (политическая программа) and other documents describing the political aims of the party and the means employed to achieve them.
2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ rights secured by Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention on account of their criminal prosecutions and convictions of:
(a) participation in the activity of the National Bolshevik Party?
(b) incitement to hatred and hostility and humiliation of the dignity of an individual or a group of individuals on the grounds of nationality, or membership of a social group?
3. If so, was that interference justified under Articles 10 § 2 and/or 11 § 2 of the Convention?
In particular:
(a) Was the interference “prescribed by law”? In particular, was the law, as applied by the domestic courts in the applicants’ cases, sufficiently accessible and precise to enable the applicants to foresee the consequences which their actions may entail and to regulate their conduct?
(b) If so, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Articles 10 § 2 and/or 11 § 2 of the Convention?
(c) If so, was it necessary in a democratic society? In particular, were the criminal prosecution and the sanctions imposed proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?
APPENDIX
List of applications
1.48413/09Andrey Nikitin v. Russia
2.57957/10Avdyushenkov v. Russia
3.66254/10Deyev v. Russia
4.66924/10Isusov v. Russia
5.13232/14Bespalov v. Russia
6.6376/15Popov v. Russia
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy